The term knowledge translation (KT) may be a relatively new (and important) term in the fields of medical education and research, but what it describes is a relatively old problem: how do we as educators and researchers properly address the gap between the large volume of research data and its systematic review and implementation by key stakeholders?
The Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR) defines KT as “…the exchange, synthesis, and ethically-sound application of knowledge—within a complex set of interactions among researchers and users—to accelerate the capture of the benefits of research for Canadians through improved health, more effective services and products, and a strengthened health care system.”
Many funding agencies require that researchers think about how they will integrate KT strategy into their projects, and expect researchers to report back to funding agencies on which strategies they used and were most effective.
In obstetrics and gynaecology, there are only a few poignant examples of strategic knowledge translation. We received a CIHR Knowledge Translation award to carry out this 1-year project. We delivered a series of face-to-face public forums, and online YouTube videos and a webinar in which experts in obstetrics and gynaecology delivered key findings in research. Participants at face-to-face events were more likely to have a personal interest in the topic, that these events are an opportunity to correct health-related myths, and that the interactive nature of the forum allowed women to have their individual questions addressed.In terms of online KT, websites can be an effective and inexpensive way of having a broad reach, that Facebook is an effective way to interact with young, female members of the public, and that Webinars are an inexpensive means of doing KT. A number of lessons were learned that will assist in future strategic delivery of KT in the area of ob/gyn.
Members of the public want to know what new scientific innovations are available that may directly improve their quality of life. Moreover, it is often their taxpayer dollars that fund the tri-council agencies, which provide most of the funding for Canadian health researchers. Oftentimes, researchers believe the publishing their findings in a medical or scientific journal counts as KT; however, it is well known that this narrow scope of KT means that findings are not making their way into the hands of consumers and stakeholders who could benefit the most from knowing the findings. As researchers, we need to think critically and strategically about KT, not just at the end of research projects, but integrated throughout all stages of the project.