Abstract
Objectives
This study sought to better understand the role of research knowledge in Ontario tobacco control networks by asking: 1) How is research managed; 2) How is research evaluated; and 3) How is research utilized?
Methods
This is a secondary analysis of a qualitative study based on individual semi-structured interviews with 29 participants between January and May 2006. These participants were purposefully sampled from across four Ministries in the provincial government (n=7), non-government (n=15), and public health organizations (n=7). Interviews were transcribed verbatim and coded and analyzed using QSR N7 qualitative software. This study received ethics approval from The University of Western Ontario Health Research Ethics Board.
Results
There exists a dissonance between the preference for peer-reviewed, unbiased, non-partisan knowledge to support claims and the need for fast, “real-time” information on which to base tobacco-related policy decisions. Second, there is a great deal of tacit knowledge held by experts within the Ontario tobacco control community. The networks among government, non-government, and public health organizations are the structures through which tacit knowledge is exchanged. These networks are dynamic, fluid and shifting.
Conclusion
There exists a gap in the production and utilization of research knowledge for tobacco control policy. Tacit knowledge held by experts in Ontario tobacco control networks is an integral means of managing and evaluating research knowledge. Finally, this study builds on Weiss’s concept of tactical model of evidence use by highlighting the utilization of research to enhance one’s credibility.
Key words: Public health, diffusion of innovation, information dissemination, information networks, tobacco
Résumé
Objectifs
Mieux comprendre le rôle des connaissances de recherche dans les réseaux de lutte contre le tabagisme de l’Ontario en trouvant réponse aux questions suivantes: 1) Comment gère-ton la recherche? 2) Comment évalue-t-on la recherche? et 3) Comment utilise-t-on la recherche?
Méthode
Analyse secondaire d’une étude qualitative fondée sur des entretiens individuels semi-structurés avec 29 participants menés entre janvier et mai 2006. Nous avions sélectionné les participants dans quatre ministères provinciaux (n=7), dans des organisations non gouvernementales (n=15) et dans des organismes de santé publique (n=7). Les entretiens ont été transcrits textuellement, puis codés et analysés à l’aide du logiciel de recherche qualitative QSR N7. Les aspects déontologiques de l’étude ont été approuvés par le comité d’éthique pour la recherche en santé de l’Université Western Ontario.
Résultats
Tout d’abord, nous avons observé une dissonance entre la préférence pour les allégations qui s’appuient sur des connaissances évaluées par des pairs, non biaisées et impartiales, d’une part, et le besoin d’informations rapides, « en temps réel », pour étayer les décisions stratégiques liées au tabagisme. Deuxièmement, les spécialistes de la lutte antitabac en Ontario possèdent déjà un grand savoir tacite. Les réseaux des ministères, des ONG et des organismes de santé publique sont les structures par lesquelles s’échange ce savoir tacite. Ce sont des réseaux dynamiques, fluides et changeants.
Conclusion
Il existe un fossé entre la production des connaissances de recherche et leur utilisation dans les politiques antitabac. Le savoir tacite que détiennent les spécialistes des réseaux ontariens de lutte contre le tabagisme fait partie intégrante de la gestion et de l’évaluation des connaissances de recherche. Enfin, notre étude renforce le modèle tactique d’utilisation des données probantes de Weiss en soulignant l’utilisation de la recherche pour améliorer la crédibilité personnelle des décideurs.
Mots clés: santé publique; diffusion des innovations; diffusion de l’information; réseaux d’information; tabac
Footnotes
Acknowledgement: The authors acknowledge Kathy Ellis, a research assistant, who conducted the telephone interviews with participants.
Funding Support: This research was funded through an investigator award (AK) from the Ontario Tobacco Research Unit. In addition, the second author is supported partially by an Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care Career Scientist Award.
References
- 1.Lemieux-Charles L, Chambers LW, Cockerill R, Jaglal S, Brazil K, Cohen C, et al. Evaluating the effectiveness of community-based dementia care networks: The Dementia Care Networks Study. Gerontologist. 2005;45:456–64. doi: 10.1093/geront/45.4.456. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Cockerill R, Jaglal S, Lemieux-Charles L, Chambers L, Brazil K, Cohen C. Components of coordinated instruments to assess care givers’ and care recipients’ experiences with networks of dementia care. Dementia: Int J Soc Res Pract. 2006;5(1):51–65. doi: 10.1177/1471301206059754. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Norman C, Huerta T. Knowledge transfer & exchange through social networks: Building foundations for a community of practice within tobacco control. Implementation Sci. 2006;1:20. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-1-20. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Kothari A, Edwards N, Brajtman S, Campbell B, Hamel N, Legault F, et al. Fostering interactions: The networking needs of community health nursing researchers and decision-makers. Evidence and Policy. 2005;1(3):291–304. doi: 10.1332/1744264054851577. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Farquharson K. Influencing policy transnational-ly: Pro- and anti-tobacco global advocacy networks. Austral J Public Admin. 2003;62(4):80–92. doi: 10.1111/j..2003.00351.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Hill C. Network literature review: Conceptualizing and evaluating networks. Calgary, AB: Southern Alberta Child & Youth Health Network; 2002. [Google Scholar]
- 7.Studlar D. Tobacco Control: Comparative Politics in the United States and Canada. Peterborough, ON: Broadview Press; 2002. [Google Scholar]
- 8.Sabatier P, Jenkins-Smith H. Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach. Boulder, San Francisco, Oxford: Westview Press; 1993. [Google Scholar]
- 9.Holsti O. Content Analysis for the Social Sciences and Humanities. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.; 1969. [Google Scholar]
- 10.Lincoln Y, Guba E. Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage; 1985. [Google Scholar]
- 11.Weiss CH. The many meanings of research utilization. Public Admin Rev. 1979;39(5):426–31. doi: 10.2307/3109916. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Lomas J. Improving research dissemination and uptake in the health sector: Beyond the sound of one hand clapping. Hamilton, ON: McMaster Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, Report No.: Commentary C97-1; 1997. [Google Scholar]
- 13.Bryant T. Role of knowledge in public health and health promotion policy change. Health Promot Int. 2002;17(1):89–98. doi: 10.1093/heapro/17.1.89. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Raphael D. The question of evidence in health promotion. Health Promot Int. 2000;15:355–67. doi: 10.1093/heapro/15.4.355. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Huberman M. Linkage between researchers and practitioners: A qualitative study. Am Educ Res J. 1990;27(2):363–91. doi: 10.3102/00028312027002363. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Bowen S, Zwi AB. Pathways to “evidence-informed” policy and practice: A framework for action. Plos Med. 2005;2(7):e166. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020166. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Cousins J, Leithwood K. Current empirical research on evaluation utilization. Rev Educ Res. 1986;56(3):331–64. doi: 10.3102/00346543056003331. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Nutley S, Walter I, Davies HTO. From knowing to doing: A framework for understanding the evidence-into-practice agenda. Evaluation. 2003;9(2):125–48. doi: 10.1177/1356389003009002002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Landry R, Amara N, Lamari M. Utilization of social science research knowledge in Canada. Res Policy. 2001;30:333–49. doi: 10.1016/S0048-7333(00)00081-0. [DOI] [Google Scholar]