Improving KT tools and products: development and evaluation of a framework for creating optimized, Knowledge-activated Tools (KaT)

Monika Kastner; Julie Makarski; Leigh Hayden; Yonda Lai; Joyce Chan; Victoria Treister; Kegan Harris; Sarah Munce; Jayna Holroyd-Leduc; Ian D Graham; Sharon E Straus

doi:10.1186/s43058-020-00031-7

Improving KT tools and products: development and evaluation of a framework for creating optimized, Knowledge-activated Tools (KaT)

Implement Sci Commun. 2020 May 8:1:47. doi: 10.1186/s43058-020-00031-7. eCollection 2020.

Authors

Monika Kastner^{1

2}, Julie Makarski¹, Leigh Hayden¹, Yonda Lai³, Joyce Chan^{1

3}, Victoria Treister³, Kegan Harris¹, Sarah Munce⁴, Jayna Holroyd-Leduc⁵, Ian D Graham⁶, Sharon E Straus^{3

7}

Affiliations

¹ North York General Hospital, Centre for Research and Innovation, 4001 Leslie Street, Toronto, Ontario M2K 1E1 Canada.
² Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Health Sciences Building, 155 College Street, Suite 425, Toronto, ON M5T 3M6 Canada.
³ Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael's hospital, University of Toronto, 30 Bond Street, Toronto, ON M5B 1W8 Canada.
⁴ University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario Canada.
⁵ Departments of Medicine and Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta Canada.
⁶ School of Epidemiology and Public Health, Clinical Epidemiology Program, University of Ottawa and Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario Canada.
⁷ Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.

Abstract

Background: Positive impacts of quality improvement initiatives on health care and services have not been substantial. Knowledge translation (KT) strategies (tools, products and interventions) strive to facilitate the uptake of knowledge thereby the potential to improve care, but there is little guidance on how to develop them. Existing KT guidance or planning tools fall short in operationalizing all aspects of KT practice activities conducted by knowledge users (researchers, clinicians, patients, decision-makers), and most do not consider their variable needs or to deliver recommendations that are most relevant and useful for them.

Methods: We conducted a 3-phase study. In phase 1, we used several sources to develop a conceptual framework for creating optimized Knowledge-activated Tools (KaT) (consultation with our integrated KT team, the use of existing KT models and frameworks, findings of a systematic review of multimorbidity interventions and a literature review and document analysis on existing KT guidance tools). In phase 2, we invited KT experts to participate in a Delphi study to refine and evaluate the conceptual KaT framework. In phase 3, we administered an online survey to knowledge users (researchers, clinicians, decision-makers, trainees) to evaluate the potential usefulness of an online mock-up version of the KaT framework.

Results: We developed the conceptual KaT framework, and iteratively refined it with 35 KT experts in a 3-round Delphi study. The final framework represents the blueprint for what is needed to create KT strategies. Feedback from 201 researcher, clinician, decision-maker and trainee knowledge users on the potential need and usefulness of an online, interactive version of KaT indicated that they liked the idea of it (mean score 4.36 on a 5-point Likert scale) and its proposed features (mean score range 4.30-4.79).

Conclusions: Our findings suggest that mostly Canadian KT experts and knowledge users perceived the KaT framework and the future development of an online, interactive version to be important and needed. We anticipate that the KaT framework will provide clarity for knowledge users about how to identify their KT needs and what activities can address these needs, and to help streamline the process of these activities to facilitate efficient uptake of knowledge.

Keywords: Delphi study; Framework; KT tools, Interventions; Knowledge translation; Knowledge user needs; Survey.