CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 119Health Policy Implementation ScienceCommunity Health and DevelopmentHealth Sciences Research and Education

Community-based knowledge transfer and exchange: Helping community-based organizations link research to action

Open access
Wilson, Michael G, Lavis, John N, Travers, Robb, Rourke, Sean B·2010·Implementation Science
DOI 10.1186/1748-5908-5-33PMC PMC2873302
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Community-based organizations (CBOs) are important stakeholders in health systems and are increasingly called upon to use research evidence to inform their advocacy, program planning, and service delivery efforts. CBOs increasingly turn to community-based research (CBR) given its participatory focus and emphasis on linking research to action. In order to further facilitate the use of research evidence by CBOs, we have developed a strategy for community-based knowledge transfer and exchange (KTE) that helps CBOs more effectively link research evidence to action. We developed the strategy by: outlining the primary characteristics of CBOs and why they are important stakeholders in health systems; describing the concepts and methods for CBR and for KTE; comparing the efforts of CBR to link research evidence to action to those discussed in the KTE literature; and using the comparison to develop a framework for community-based KTE that builds on both the strengths of CBR and existing KTE frameworks. DISCUSSION: We find that CBR is particularly effective at fostering a climate for using research evidence and producing research evidence relevant to CBOs through community participation. However, CBOs are not always as engaged in activities to link research evidence to action on a larger scale or to evaluate these efforts. Therefore, our strategy for community-based KTE focuses on: an expanded model of 'linkage and exchange' (i.e., producers and users of researchers engaging in a process of asking and answering questions together); a greater emphasis on both producing and disseminating systematic reviews that address topics of interest to CBOs; developing a large-scale evidence service consisting of both 'push' efforts and efforts to facilitate 'pull' that highlight actionable messages from community relevant systematic reviews in a user-friendly way; and rigorous evaluations of efforts for linking research evidence to action. SUMMARY: Through this type of strategy, use of research evidence for CBO advocacy, program planning, and service delivery efforts can be better facilitated and continually refined through ongoing evaluations of its impact.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1748-5908-5-33

Cites

70 of 70 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Many scholars have called for more research that applies a "pull" model, with the goal of building practice-level capacity to select, adapt, and implement EBIs needed to address locally identified needs.

    “Many scholars have called for more research that applies a “pull” model, with the goal of building practice-level capacity to select, adapt, and implement the EBIs they need to address locally identified needs [10, 11].”

    From Beyond “implementation strategies”: classifying the full range of strategies used in implementation science and practice (2017) · cites this paper as [10]

  • Definitions of "implementation strategies" by Powell et al. and Mazza et al. suggest that implementation begins with a predefined program/practice or guideline and have the potential to perpetuate the field's historic focus on a push model of implementation.

    “These definitions suggest that implementation begins with a predefined “program or practice” or “guideline” and have the potential to perpetuate the field’s historic focus on a “push” model of implementation that begins with the identification of a specific evidence-based intervention (EBI) that is then “pushed” into practice [10].”

    From Beyond “implementation strategies”: classifying the full range of strategies used in implementation science and practice (2017) · cites this paper as [10]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Wilson, M. G., Lavis, J. N., Travers, R., & Rourke, S. B.
Affiliations
  • McMaster University (CA)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • St. Michael's Hospital (CA)
Corresponding author
Wilson, Michael G
ORCID
Venue
Implementation Science
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2010-04-27
Volume
5
Issue
1
Pages
33-33
ISSN
1748-5908 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/1748-5908-5-33
PMC
PMC2873302
OpenAlex
W1984748788
Cited by
119
References
70
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 3
FWCI
13.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Implementation Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • TSpace (University of Toronto) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Scholars Commons (Wilfrid Laurier University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Community Health and Development
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
Keywords
community organizations, community-based research, evidence-informed practice, systematic reviews, community participation, health system stakeholders

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review