• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

林堡学术合作中心:公共卫生政策、研究和实践知识转移和交流的平台?

Academic Collaborative Centre Limburg: a platform for knowledge transfer and exchange in public health policy, research and practice?

机构信息

Academic Collaborative Centre for Public Health Limburg, Regional Public Health Service, PO Box 2022, 6160 HA Geleen, The Netherlands.

出版信息

Health Policy. 2013 Jul;111(2):175-83. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2013.04.004. Epub 2013 Apr 30.

DOI:10.1016/j.healthpol.2013.04.004
PMID:23642789
Abstract

Research findings often fail to find their way into policy and practice, which is assumed to limit the effectiveness of public health policies and programmes. We evaluated to what extent the Academic Collaborative Centre Limburg (ACCL), a Dutch boundary organization linking policy, research and practice, has improved knowledge transfer and exchange between the three domains. We used a mixed-methods approach. First, stakeholders jointly defined the ACCL's programme theory, showing how the ACCL was supposed to achieve its intended effects. Second, we assessed the achievements of the ACCL in terms of knowledge transfer and exchange on the basis of the programme theory. The ACCL was found to provide a platform for interaction between actors from the policy, research and practice domains, facilitated by integrated network structures. The number of collaborative projects and actors involved in the ACCL increased, but actual cross-domain interaction patterns did not really change. Cross-domain knowledge transfer and exchange still require major boundary-spanning efforts by the ACCL programme leader. Boundary organizations do not automatically produce cross-domain interactions. In addition to infrastructural arrangements, cross-domain knowledge transfer and exchange could benefit from additional cultural changes, like adopting a deliberative approach to policy making and applying constructivist research designs.

摘要

研究结果往往无法应用于政策和实践中,这被认为限制了公共卫生政策和计划的有效性。我们评估了学术合作林堡中心(ACCL)作为一个将政策、研究和实践联系起来的荷兰边界组织,在多大程度上促进了这三个领域之间的知识转移和交流。我们采用了混合方法。首先,利益相关者共同定义了 ACCL 的计划理论,展示了 ACCL 应该如何实现其预期效果。其次,根据该计划理论,我们评估了 ACCL 在知识转移和交流方面的成就。发现 ACCL 通过整合的网络结构为政策、研究和实践领域的参与者之间的互动提供了一个平台。参与 ACCL 的合作项目和参与者的数量有所增加,但实际的跨领域互动模式并没有真正改变。跨领域的知识转移和交流仍然需要 ACCL 项目负责人进行重大的跨越边界的努力。边界组织并不会自动产生跨领域的互动。除了基础设施安排外,跨领域的知识转移和交流还可以受益于文化方面的变革,例如采用审议性的政策制定方法和应用建构主义的研究设计。

相似文献

1
Academic Collaborative Centre Limburg: a platform for knowledge transfer and exchange in public health policy, research and practice?林堡学术合作中心:公共卫生政策、研究和实践知识转移和交流的平台?
Health Policy. 2013 Jul;111(2):175-83. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2013.04.004. Epub 2013 Apr 30.
2
Does collaborative research enhance the integration of research, policy and practice? The case of the Dutch Health Broker Partnership.合作研究是否能增强研究、政策和实践的整合?荷兰健康经纪人伙伴关系的案例。
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2012 Oct;17(4):219-26. doi: 10.1258/jhsrp.2012.011135. Epub 2012 Oct 4.
3
Academic collaborative centres for health promotion in the Netherlands: building bridges between research, policy and practice.荷兰的健康促进学术合作中心:在研究、政策和实践之间架起桥梁。
Fam Pract. 2012 Apr;29 Suppl 1:i157-i162. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmr073.
4
The construction of evidence-based local health policy through partnerships: Research infrastructure, process, and context in the Rotterdam 'Healthy in the City' programme.通过伙伴关系构建基于证据的地方卫生政策:鹿特丹“健康城市”计划中的研究基础设施、过程和背景。
J Public Health Policy. 2010 Dec;31(4):447-60. doi: 10.1057/jphp.2010.33.
5
Conditions for sustainability of Academic Collaborative Centres for Public Health in the Netherlands: a mixed methods design.荷兰公共卫生学术合作中心可持续发展的条件:一项混合方法设计。
Health Res Policy Syst. 2015 Aug 21;13:36. doi: 10.1186/s12961-015-0026-7.
6
Health governance by collaboration: a case study on an area-based programme to tackle health inequalities in the Dutch city of the Hague.协作式健康治理:以荷兰海牙市为例的一个基于区域的项目,旨在解决健康不平等问题。
Eur J Public Health. 2013 Dec;23(6):939-46. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckt038. Epub 2013 Mar 26.
7
From knowledge to action in public health management: experiences from a Norwegian context.从知识到公共卫生管理行动:来自挪威的经验。
Scand J Public Health. 2013 Dec;41(8):771-7. doi: 10.1177/1403494813496600. Epub 2013 Jul 17.
8
Intelligent policy making? Key actors' perspectives on the development and implementation of an early years' initiative in Scotland's public health arena.智能决策?关键行为体对苏格兰公共卫生领域早期倡议的制定和实施的看法。
Soc Sci Med. 2013 Nov;96:1-8. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.07.001. Epub 2013 Jul 13.
9
From making pamphlets to making policies: results from a collaborative training to increase knowledge, motivation, and self-efficacy for achieving public health policy and systems change.从制作宣传册到制定政策:一项合作培训的成果,该培训旨在提高实现公共卫生政策与系统变革所需的知识、动力和自我效能。
Health Promot Pract. 2009 Apr;10(2 Suppl):138S-145S. doi: 10.1177/1524839909332601.
10
Translating tuberculosis research into global policies: the example of an international collaboration on diagnostics.将结核病研究转化为全球政策:以诊断国际合作为例。
Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2011 Oct;15(10):1283-93. doi: 10.5588/ijtld.11.0297.

引用本文的文献

1
Knowledge translation platforms: Broker, intermediary or more? A scoping review of definitions, functions and characteristics.知识转化平台:中介、媒介还是更多?对定义、功能和特征的范围综述
Health Res Policy Syst. 2025 Sep 1;23(1):107. doi: 10.1186/s12961-025-01383-z.
2
Knowledge management tools and mechanisms for evidence-informed decision-making in the WHO European Region: a scoping review.知识管理工具和机制在世界卫生组织欧洲区域循证决策中的应用:范围综述。
Health Res Policy Syst. 2023 Oct 31;21(1):113. doi: 10.1186/s12961-023-01058-7.
3
DORA-compliant measures of research quality and impact to assess the performance of researchers in biomedical institutions: Review of published research, international best practice and Delphi survey.
符合 DORA 标准的研究质量和影响力衡量指标,用于评估生物医学机构研究人员的表现:已发表研究的回顾、国际最佳实践和德尔菲调查。
PLoS One. 2023 May 12;18(5):e0270616. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0270616. eCollection 2023.
4
Describing the evidence-base for research engagement by health care providers and health care organisations: a scoping review.描述医疗保健提供者和医疗机构参与研究的证据基础:范围综述。
BMC Health Serv Res. 2023 Jan 24;23(1):75. doi: 10.1186/s12913-022-08887-2.
5
Leadership Competencies for Knowledge Translation in Public Health: A consensus study.领导力胜任力在公共卫生知识转化中的应用:一项共识研究。
J Public Health (Oxf). 2022 Dec 1;44(4):926-935. doi: 10.1093/pubmed/fdab286.
6
Enabling visibility of the clinician-scientists' knowledge broker role: a participatory design research in the Dutch nursing-home sector.展现临床科学家的知识中介角色:荷兰养老院部门的一项参与式设计研究。
Health Res Policy Syst. 2021 Apr 7;19(1):61. doi: 10.1186/s12961-021-00715-z.
7
Increasing the capacity of policy agencies to use research findings: a stepped-wedge trial.提高政策机构利用研究成果的能力:一项阶梯式楔形试验。
Health Res Policy Syst. 2019 Feb 6;17(1):14. doi: 10.1186/s12961-018-0408-8.
8
What can we learn from interventions that aim to increase policy-makers' capacity to use research? A realist scoping review.从旨在提高政策制定者使用研究能力的干预措施中,我们可以学到什么?一项现实主义范围综述。
Health Res Policy Syst. 2018 Apr 10;16(1):31. doi: 10.1186/s12961-018-0277-1.
9
Identifying the conditions needed for integrated knowledge translation (IKT) in health care organizations: qualitative interviews with researchers and research users.确定医疗保健机构中整合知识转化(IKT)所需的条件:对研究人员和研究使用者的定性访谈
BMC Health Serv Res. 2016 Jul 12;16:256. doi: 10.1186/s12913-016-1533-0.
10
Community-Academic Partnerships: A Systematic Review of the State of the Literature and Recommendations for Future Research.社区-学术伙伴关系:文献现状的系统综述及对未来研究的建议
Milbank Q. 2016 Mar;94(1):163-214. doi: 10.1111/1468-0009.12184.