Peas in a Pod: The Process of Mutual Learning in Knowledge Exchange on Health Promotion Interventions Research
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
INTRODUCTION: Knowledge exchange (KE) in health promotion research encourages the outcome of mutual learning between researchers and knowledge users. Researcher-practitioner partnerships (RPP) are an approach in health promotion intended to cultivate mutually beneficial research between different disciplines and sectors. RPPs have been found to improve intervention success and sustainability, including the bidirectional sharing of sector-specific knowledge, but how mutual learning occurs remains unclear. This paper analyses two examples of mutual learning in health promotion RPPs, as told by the practitioners and researchers involved. METHODS: During the Peas in a Pod virtual practice exchange, researchers and practitioners working in retail food environments came together to discuss KE. The event included a fireside chat with two retailers sharing their experiences collaborating with researchers. The primary author took notes from the discussion and led the writing of the case, which each practitioner reviewed for accuracy. After the fireside chat, researchers and knowledge users held small group discussions which were analysed into three themes to explore mutual learning within retail food environment research. RESULTS: Example one was a retailer-led hospital retail merchandising intervention study at an urban public tertiary hospital in Nova Scotia, Canada. Example two was a healthy merchandising strategy trial with an Australian Aboriginal-owned and governed not-for-profit store corporation in the Northern Territory and Queensland, Australia. Mutual learning involved (1) partnerships with both near and far-sighted vision, (2) negotiation and meeting in the middle and (3) leveraging policies and strategies to support interventions. Overall, KE bridged both knowledge and action. CONCLUSION: This paper provides insight into how mutual learning occurs in health promotion research. Mutual learning within an RPP influenced research design and implementation. Our findings showed that knowledge exchange emerging through the intervention research also contributed to further changes in partnerships and policies. However, further study is required to understand how knowledge exchange and policies intersect. SO WHAT?: Mutual learning in knowledge exchange can contribute to health promotion intervention evidence and create pathways to new partnerships with retailers who are sceptical or hesitant about implementing retail interventions.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,047 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».