Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Public Health
Published in: BMC Public Health 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Research article

Beyond bridging the know-do gap: a qualitative study of systemic interaction to foster knowledge exchange in the public health sector in The Netherlands

Authors: Francine van den Driessen Mareeuw, Lenneke Vaandrager, Laurens Klerkx, Jenneken Naaldenberg, Maria Koelen

Published in: BMC Public Health | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Despite considerable attention currently being given to facilitating the use of research results in public health practice, several concerns remain, resulting in the so-called know-do gap. This article aims to identify the key tensions causing the know-do gap from a broad perspective by using a systemic approach and considering the public health sector as an innovation system.

Methods

An exploratory qualitative design including in-depth semi-structured interviews was used, with 33 interviewees from different actor categories in the Dutch public health innovation system. The analyses employed an innovation system matrix to highlight the principal tensions causing the know-do gap.

Results

Seven key tensions were identified, including: research priorities determined by powerful players; no consensus about criteria for knowledge quality; different perceptions about the knowledge broker role; competition engendering fragmentation; thematic funding engendering fragmentation; predominance of passive knowledge sharing; and lack of capacity among users to use and influence research.

Conclusions

The identified tensions indicate that bridging the know-do gap requires much more than linking research to practice or translating knowledge. An innovation system perspective is crucial in providing information on the total picture of knowledge exchange within the Dutch public health sector. Such a system includes broader stakeholder involvement as well as the creation of social, economic, and contextual conditions (achieving shared visions, building networks, institutional change, removing financial and infrastructural barriers), as these create conducive factors at several system levels and induce knowledge co-creation and innovation.
Literature
1.
de Leeuw E. Health promotion impact factor: join up, no translation. HPI. 2006;21:257–8.
2.
Smits PA, Denis JL. How research funding agencies support science integration into policy and practice: An international overview. Implementation Sci. 2014;9:28.CrossRef
3.
Tetroe JM, Graham ID, Foy R, Robinson N, Eccles MP, Wensing M, et al. Health research funding agencies’ support and promotion of knowledge translation: An international study. Milbank Q. 2008;86:125–55.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
4.
5.
Jansen MW, De Leeuw E, Hoeijmakers M, De Vries NK. Working at the nexus between public health policy, practice and research. Dynamics of knowledge sharing in the Netherlands. Health Res Policy Systems. 2012;10:33.CrossRef
6.
McEvoy R, Ballini L, Maltoni S, O’Donnell CA, Mair FS, MacFarlane A. A qualitative systematic review of studies using the normalization process theory to research implementation processes. Implementation Sci. 2014;9:2.CrossRef
7.
Smith KE. The politics of ideas: The complex interplay of health inequalities research and policy. Sci Public Policy. 2013;85.
8.
9.
Lapaige V. “Integrated knowledge translation” for globally oriented public health practitioners and scientists: Framing together a sustainable transfrontier knowledge translation vision. J Multidisciplinary Healthcare. 2010;3:33–47.CrossRef
10.
11.
Ward VL, House AO, Hamer S. Knowledge brokering: Exploring the process of transferring knowledge into action. BMC Health Serv Res. 2009;9.
12.
Caron-Flinterman FJ, Broerse JEW, Bunders JFG. Patient partnership in decision-making on biomedical research: Changing the Network. Sci Technol Hum Val. 2007;32:339–68.CrossRef
13.
Geels FW. From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: Insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory. Res Policy. 2004;33:897–920.CrossRef
14.
Greenhalgh T, Stones R. Theorising big IT programmes in healthcare: strong structuration theory meets actor-network theory. Soc Sci Med. 2010;70:1285–94.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Smith K. Research, policy and funding–academic treadmills and the squeeze on intellectual spaces. The Brit J Sociol. 2010;61:176–95.CrossRef
16.
Smits R. Innovation studies in the 21st century: Questions from a user’s perspective. Technol Forecast Soc. 2002;69:861–83.CrossRef
17.
Wagemakers A. Community health promotion : facilitating and evaluating coordinated action to create supportive environments, PhD thesis. Wageningen University dissertation no. 4801. Wageningen: Wageningen University; 2010.
18.
Green LW. Making research relevant: If it is an evidence-based practice, where’s the practice-based evidence? Fam Pract. 2009;25.
19.
Hekkert MP, Suurs RAA, Negro SO, Kuhlmann S, Smits REHM. Functions of innovation systems: A new approach for analysing technological change. Technol Forecast Soc. 2007;74:413–32.CrossRef
20.
Glasgow RE, Emmons KM. How can we increase translation of research into practice? Types of evidence needed. Annu Rev Publ Health. 2007;28:413–33.CrossRef
21.
Mowles C. Planning to innovate. Designing change or caught up in a game? Perspect Public Heal. 2011;131:119–23.CrossRef
22.
Lundvall BÅ, Johnson B, Andersen ES, Dalum B. National systems of production, innovation and competence building. Res Policy. 2002;31:213–31.CrossRef
23.
Malerba F. Sectoral systems of innovation and production. Res Policy. 2002;31:247–64.CrossRef
24.
The World Bank. Enhancing Agricultural Innovation: How to go Beyond the Strengthening of Research Systems. Washington: The World Bank; 2006.CrossRef
25.
Bailie R, Matthews V, Brands J, Schierhout G. A systems-based partnership learning model for strengthening primary healthcare. Implement Sci. 2013;8:143.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
Thunhurst CP. Public health systems analysis-where the River Kabul meets the River Indus. Glob Heal. 2013;9:39.CrossRef
27.
Gildemacher PR, Kaguongo W, Ortiz O, Tesfaye A, Woldegiorgis G, Wagoire WW, et al. Improving potato production in Kenya, Uganda and Ethiopia: a system diagnosis. Potato Res. 2009;52:173–205.CrossRef
28.
Klein Woolthuis R, Lankhuizen M, Gilsing V. A system failure framework for innovation policy design. Technovation. 2005;25:609–19.CrossRef
29.
van Mierlo B, Leeuwis C, Smits R, Woolthuis RK. Learning towards system innovation: Evaluating a systemic instrument. Technol Forecast Soc. 2010;77:318–34.CrossRef
30.
Wieczorek AJ, Hekkert MP. Systemic instruments for systemic innovation problems: A framework for policy makers and innovation scholars. Sci Public Policy. 2012;39:74–87.CrossRef
31.
Lusk E, Harris M. Knowledge brokering in the Canadian mental health and dementia health care system: Literature review. Canada: Canadian Dementia Knowledge Translation Network; 2010.
32.
Arnold E, Kuhlman S. RCN in the Norwegian research and innovation system, Fraunhofer ISI. 2001.
33.
34.
Ward V, House A, Hamer S. Knowledge brokering: The missing link in the evidence to action chain? Evidence Pol. 2009;5:267–79.CrossRef
35.
Wehrens R, Bekker M, Bal R. Coordination of research, policy and practice: a case study of collaboration in the field of public health. Sci Public Policy. 2011;38:755–66.CrossRef
36.
Klerkx L, Leeuwis C. Institutionalizing end-user demand steering in agricultural R&D: Farmer levy funding of R&D in The Netherlands. Res Policy. 2008;37:460–72.CrossRef
37.
Wehrens R. Beyond two communities–from research utilization and knowledge translation to co-production? Public Health. 2014;128(6):545–51.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Kok MO, Vaandrager L, Bal R, Schuit J. Practitioner opinions on health promotion interventions that work: Opening the ‘black box’of a linear evidence-based approach. Soc Sci Med. 2012;74:715–23.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Exworthy M, Hunter DJ. The challenge of joined-up government in tackling health inequalities. Int J Publ Adm. 2011;34:201–12.CrossRef
40.
Green LW. Public health asks of systems science: To advance our evidence-based practice, can you help us get more practice-based evidence? Am J Public Health. 2006;96:406–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
41.
Sanderson I. Intelligent policy making for a complex world: pragmatism, evidence and learning. Political Studies. 2009;57:699–719.CrossRef
42.
Pittens CA, Elberse JE, Visse M, Abma TA, Broerse JE. Research agendas involving patients: factors that facilitate or impede translation of patients’ perspectives in programming and implementation. Sci Public Policy. 2014. doi:10.​1093/​scipol/​scu010.
43.
Powell K, Kitson A, Hoon E, Newbury J, Wilson A, Beilby J. A study protocol for applying the co-creating knowledge translation framework to a population health study. Impl Science. 2013;8:98.CrossRef
44.
Mitton C, Adair CE, McKenzie E, Patten SB, Perry BW. Knowledge transfer and exchange: Review and synthesis of the literature. Milbank Quart. 2007;85:729–68.CrossRef
45.
Waqa G, Mavoa H, Snowdon W, Moodie M, Schultz J, McCabe M, et al. Knowledge brokering between researchers and policymakers in Fiji to develop policies to reduce obesity: a process evaluation. Impl Science. 2013;8:74.CrossRef
46.
Schut M, van Paassen A, Leeuwis C, Klerkx L. Towards dynamic research configurations: A framework for reflection on the contribution of research to policy and innovation processes. Sci Public Policy. 2014;41:207–18.CrossRef
47.
Armstrong R, Waters E, Crockett B, Keleher H. The nature of evidence resources and knowledge translation for health promotion practitioners. HPI. 2007;22:254–60.
48.
Harting J, Kunst AE, Kwan A, Stronks K. A ‘health broker’role as a catalyst of change to promote health: an experiment in deprived Dutch neighbourhoods. HPI. 2010;26(1):65–81.
49.
Klerkx L, Schut M, Leeuwis C, Kilelu C. Advances in knowledge brokering in the agricultural sector: towards innovation system facilitation. IDS Bull. 2012;43:53–60.CrossRef
50.
Ellen ME, Léon G, Bouchard G, Lavis JN, Ouimet M, Grimshaw JM. What supports do health system organizations have in place to facilitate evidence-informed decision-making? A qualitative study. Impl Science. 2013;8:84.CrossRef
51.
Ruppertsberg AI, Ward V, Ridout A, Foy R. The development and application of audit criteria for assessing knowledge exchange plans in health research grant applications. Impl Science. 2014;9:93.CrossRef
52.
Gulbrandsen M. Tensions in the research council−research community relationship. Sci Public Policy. 2005;32:199–209.CrossRef
53.
Klerkx L, Leeuwis C. Establishment and embedding of innovation brokers at different innovation system levels: Insights from the Dutch agricultural sector. Technol Forecast Soc. 2009;76:849–60.CrossRef
54.
ZonMw. Preventie op Koers 5e Programma Preventie 2014−2018, “Prevention on track, 5th Prevention Programme 2014–2018”). ZonMw: The Hague; 2014. p. 15.
Metadata
Title
Beyond bridging the know-do gap: a qualitative study of systemic interaction to foster knowledge exchange in the public health sector in The Netherlands
Authors
Francine van den Driessen Mareeuw
Lenneke Vaandrager
Laurens Klerkx
Jenneken Naaldenberg
Maria Koelen
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Public Health / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2458
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-2271-7

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

BMC Public Health 1/2015 Go to the issue

Research article

Epidemiology of human immunodeficiency virus-1 and hepatitis B virus co-infection and risk factors for acquiring these infections in the Fako division of Southwest Cameroon

Research article

Mortality in the German Pharmacoepidemiological Research Database (GePaRD) compared to national data in Germany: results from a validation study

Study protocol

A cluster-randomised controlled trial to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a childhood obesity prevention programme delivered through schools, targeting 6–7 year old children: the WAVES study protocol

Research article

Systematic review of structural interventions for intimate partner violence in low- and middle-income countries: organizing evidence for prevention

Research article

The lifestyle habits and wellbeing of physicians in Bahrain: a cross-sectional study

Research article

Low prevalence of the transmitted HIV-1 drug resistance among newly diagnosed HIV-1 individuals in Jiangsu Province, China during 2009–2011