Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Dalhousie University, Life Sciences Centre, 1355 Oxford Street, Halifax, NS, B3H4J1, Canada.
Centre for Pediatric Pain Research, IWK Health, Halifax, NS, Canada.
BMC Health Serv Res. 2024 Mar 14;24(1):337. doi: 10.1186/s12913-024-10782-x.
Knowledge mobilization (KM) is essential to close the longstanding evidence to practice gap in pediatric pain management. Engaging various partners (i.e., those with expertise in a given topic area) in KM is best practice; however, little is known about how different partners engage and collaborate on KM activities. This mixed-methods study aimed to understand what different KM partner groups (i.e., health professionals, researchers, and patient/caregiver partners) perceive as supporting KM activities within pediatric pain management.
This study used a convergent mixed-methods design. Ten partners from each of the three groups participated in interviews informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, where they discussed what impacted KM activities within pediatric pain. Participants then rated and ranked select factors discussed in the interview. Transcripts were analyzed within each group using reflexive thematic analysis. Group-specific themes were then triangulated to identify convergence and divergence among groups. A matrix analysis was then conducted to generate meta-themes to describe overarching concepts. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.
Unique themes were developed within each partner group and further analysis generated four meta-themes: (1) team dynamics; (2) role of leadership; (3) policy influence; (4) social influence. There was full agreement among groups on the meaning of team dynamics. While there was partial agreement on the role of leadership, groups differed on who they described as taking on leadership positions. There was also partial agreement on policy influence, where health professionals and researchers described different institutions as being responsible for providing funding support. Finally, there was partial agreement on social influence, where the role of networks was seen as serving distinct purposes to support KM. Quantitative analyses indicated that partner groups shared similar priorities (e.g., team relationships, communication quality) when it came to supporting KM in pediatric pain.
While partners share many needs in common, there is also nuance in how they wish to be engaged in KM activities as well as the contexts in which they work. Strategies must be introduced to address these nuances to promote effective engagement in KM to increase the impact of evidence in pediatric pain.
知识转化（KM）对于缩小儿科疼痛管理中由来已久的证据与实践之间的差距至关重要。让各种合作伙伴（即，在特定主题领域具有专业知识的人员）参与 KM 是最佳实践；然而，对于不同的合作伙伴如何参与和协作 KM 活动知之甚少。这项混合方法研究旨在了解不同的 KM 伙伴群体（即卫生专业人员、研究人员和患者/照顾者伙伴）如何看待在儿科疼痛管理中支持 KM 活动。
本研究采用了收敛混合方法设计。来自三个群体的每个群体的 10 名合作伙伴参与了基于实施研究综合框架的访谈，他们在访谈中讨论了哪些因素影响了儿科疼痛中的 KM 活动。参与者随后对访谈中讨论的选定因素进行了评分和排名。在每个组内使用反思性主题分析对转录本进行分析。然后对特定于组的主题进行三角剖分，以确定组之间的趋同和分歧。然后进行矩阵分析以生成描述总体概念的元主题。使用描述性统计对定量数据进行分析。
在每个伙伴群体内都开发了独特的主题，进一步的分析产生了四个元主题：（1）团队动态；（2）领导力的作用；（3）政策影响；（4）社会影响。在团队动态的含义上，各群体完全一致。虽然在领导力的作用上存在部分一致，但各群体对谁担任领导角色的描述不同。在政策影响方面也存在部分一致，卫生专业人员和研究人员对不同的机构负责提供资金支持。最后，在社会影响方面也存在部分一致，网络的作用被视为以不同的目的支持 KM。定量分析表明，在支持儿科疼痛中的 KM 方面，伙伴群体在团队关系、沟通质量等方面具有相似的优先级。
虽然伙伴群体有许多共同的需求，但他们在参与 KM 活动的方式以及他们工作的背景方面也存在细微差别。必须引入策略来解决这些细微差别，以促进 KM 的有效参与，从而提高儿科疼痛中证据的影响力。
