Suchergebnisse

English
This study explores the dimensions and attributes of credibility in knowledge transfer. It finds that there are four dimensions: 'scientific credibility', expertise, authority and stance. Credibility is characterised by several attributes: it is transferable; it is context-dependent; and it is subject to constant assessment. The notion of 'credibility work' describes the ways in which credibility in knowledge transfer is not an inherent or static characteristic of persons, but rather an achieved and actively constructed result of specific actions taken by knowledge producers and knowledge users in their social contexts. Many knowledge transfer practices can be framed as credibility work.

As part of a study designed to assess a new strategy for increasing health research participation by members of underrepresented populations in the United States, we explored expectations about volunteering for research among people from lower income and largely minority communities in Madison, Wisconsin. Members of these communities often saw research participation as a means to access health care that might otherwise be unavailable to them. In light of persistent structural barriers to access, and the resulting health disparities, we argue that one cannot assume the existence of a "fair exchange" in which a community is likely to benefit from the results of research conducted with members of that community. We use ethical analysis and empirical research conducted in the developing world to explore how investigators in the United States might think about their obligations to provide ancillary care.

Research funding agencies often expect that grant applications include a knowledge translation (KT) plan but many applicants and reviewers are without any clear idea of how to develop or assess such a plan. This paper arises from the development of a guide to support the KT component of the research grant application process. The authors reflect on some of the controversial issues related to KT definitions and scope that they struggled with as they developed the guide. Recommendations regarding implementation include training for reviewers and applicants as well as building broad infrastructure supports. The paper will be of interest to both practitioners and funders of research.

Ethical issues have been of ongoing interest in discussions of community-based participatory action research (CBPAR). In this article we suggest that the notion of reciprocity — defined as an ongoing process of exchange with the aim of establishing and maintaining equality between parties — can provide a guide to the ethical practice of CBPAR. Through sharing our experiences with a CBPAR project focused on mental health services and supports in several cultural-linguistic immigrant communities in Ontario, Canada, we provide insights into our attempts at establishing reciprocal relationships with community members collaborating in the research study and discuss how these relationships contributed to ethical practice. We examine the successes and challenges with specific attention to issues of power and gain for the researched community. We begin with a discussion of the concept of reciprocity, followed by a description of how it was put into practice in our project, and, finally, conclude with suggestions for how an ethic of reciprocity might contribute to other CBPAR projects.

Medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) is a key strategy for addressing the opioid use disorder crisis, yet gaps in MOUD provision impede this strategy's benefits. The research reported here sought to understand what distinguishes low- and high-performing organizations in building and using capacity to provide MOUD. As part of a mixed methods MOUD implementation trial, semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with personnel from low- and high- performing MOUD-providing organizations. Seventeen individuals from 17 organizations were interviewed. Findings demonstrate the importance of individual, organization, and community-level factors in supporting the building and use of MOUD capacity. Low- and high-performing organizations showed different patterns of facilitators and barriers during the implementation process. The key difference between low- and high-performing organizations was the level of organizational functioning. Better understanding of an organization's assets and deficits at the individual, organizational, and community levels would allow decisionmakers to tailor their approaches to MOUD implementation.