Narrowing the knowledge to action gap: A mixed methods exploration of the implementation of knowledge exchange strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adolescence represents a time in which many health behaviours related to chronic disease risk are formed and carried into adult life. Schools are considered key settings for adolescent health interventions; however, despite extensive research in this area, schools face challenges implementing interventions at the local level. Knowledge exchange, in which researchers and knowledge users collaborate to discuss and apply research findings, is one strategy to reduce the “knowledge to action gap” between school health research and practice. While knowledge exchange strategies are emerging in school health research, the need for evaluation has been emphasized. \n \nThis dissertation explored knowledge exchange strategies within the first phase of COMPASS (2012-2016), a longitudinal study of Ontario and Alberta secondary schools and students. Schools received annual summaries of their students’ health behaviours and a COMPASS researcher (i.e., knowledge broker) supported them in taking action to improve student health. Mixed methods were used to examine influential factors and outcomes of the COMPASS knowledge exchange strategies. \n \nA quantitative analysis of school- and student-level data from the first three years of COMPASS found that school characteristics (e.g., school size, existing health initiatives and relationships with public health units at baseline) and study-related factors (e.g., knowledge broker assigned to the school, knowledge brokering engagement level in previous year[s]) influenced schools’ participation in knowledge brokering. Knowledge brokering engagement was significantly associated with school-level changes related to healthy eating, physical activity, and tobacco programming, but changes were not evident at the aggregate student level. \n \nQualitative interviews with researchers (n=13), school staff (n=13), and public health staff (n=4) expanded on influential factors and outcomes regarding use of COMPASS findings and knowledge brokering engagement. Knowledge users focused on factors that influenced their use of COMPASS findings more than knowledge brokering (discussing fewer facilitators than challenges). Factors identified by researchers and knowledge users aligned with those that influence implementation of school health interventions. School and public health staff used school-specific findings to inform programming and planning; knowledge exchange provided a platform for partnerships between researchers, schools, and public health units; and also resulted in outcomes for the study and researchers. Further, outcomes suggest knowledge exchange could provide a mechanism to help schools implement a health-promoting schools approach. Altogether, the mixed methods findings raise two considerations: how can we increase school engagement in knowledge exchange and how can we ensure knowledge exchange strategies reach schools that have lower capacity to implement school health initiatives? \n \nThis research makes substantive, theoretical, methodological, and practical contributions. Substantively, it provides an evaluation of knowledge translation in school health research. Theoretically, it integrates social constructionism and social ecological theory, addressing the need for theory in evaluating knowledge translation strategies. Further, a mixed methods approach was used to examine both implementation and outcomes, which has been advocated in the literature. Practice implications are discussed related to future knowledge translation strategies in school health and public health research. Lastly, areas for future research are identified.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".