Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Langley, Joseph (2015)
Publisher: Sheffield Hallam University
Languages: English
Types: Part of book or chapter of book

£8 billion pounds/year is spent on health related research and there is a responsibility to demonstrate a return on investment (Walshe & Davies 2013). Yet currently the translation of health services research knowledge into everyday practice remains a challenge (World Health Organisation, 2006). This challenge is known as the second knowledge translation gap (T2) or ‘campus to clinic’ gap (Greenhalgh & Wieringa 2011).


Knowledge is defined by Aristotle in three distinct forms: episteme (facts), techne (skills) and phronesis (practical wisdom). In the context of health services research ‘knowledge’ is often interchangeable with ‘evidence’ and is defined as ‘research evidence’, ‘clinical experience’, ‘patient experience’ and ‘information about the local context’ (Rycroft-Malone et al. 2004).


‘Translation’ has many broad interpretations, with the process element being described as ‘transfer’, ‘exchange’, ‘brokering’, ‘utilisation’, ‘implementation’ and most recently ‘mobilisation’. \ud This gap has given rise to a focused scientific field of study specifically exploring implementation, and resulted in models of factors affecting the implementation of research knowledge into everyday practice.


In this research, the author started from the position that implementation is not a science but a practice; a practice that shares many similar traits with design practice. And therefore design practice can offer suggestions as to how to improve implementation of health research knowledge into practice.


A review of concepts underpinning participatory design and design practice was conducted and compared to the consolidated framework complied by Damschroder et al (2009). This created two distinct descriptions that were overlaid. This paper presents these and the similarities and differences between the two are discussed to present an argument for the use of design practice to support the implementation of health services research knowledge into everyday practice.

  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Bevan, H. et al., 2007. Using a Design Approach to Assist Large-Scale Organizational Change: (igh )mpact Changes to )mprove the National (ealth Service in England. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 43, pp.135-152.
    • Booth, A., Papaioannou, D. & Sutton, A., 2011. Systematic approaches to a successful literature review., Sage. Available at: http://www.ebooks.com/820039/systematic-approaches-to-asuccessful-literature-review/booth-andrew-papaioannou-diana-sutton-anthea/.
    • Cox, G., 2005. Cox Review of Creativity in Business: building on the UKs strengths , Available at: http://www.csd.org.uk/uploadedfiles/files/cox_review.pdf.
    • Cross, N., 2006. Designerly ways of knowing, Springer London.
    • Damschroder, L.J. et al., 2009. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implementation science : IS, 4(1), p.50. Available at: http://www.implementationscience.com/content/4/1/50 [Accessed July 10, 2014].
    • Graham, I.D., 2012. Guide to Knowledge Translation Planning at CIHR: Integrated and End-of-Grant Approaches, Available at: http://www.cihr.ca/e/45321.html.
    • Greenhalgh, T. & Wieringa, S., . )s it time to drop the knowledge tran critical literature review. Jrsm, 104, pp.501-509.
    • Simons, H. & McCormack, B., 2007. Integrating Arts-Based Inquiry in Evaluation Methodology: Opportunities and Challenges. Qualitative Inquiry, 13(2), pp.292-311. Available at: http://qix.sagepub.com/content/13/2/292.abstract.
    • The World Health Organization, 2005. Bridging the Know - Do Gap Meeting on Knowledge Translation in Global Health, Available at: http://www.who.int/kms/WHO_EIP_KMS_2006_2.pdf.
    • Walshe, K. & Davies, H.T.O., 2013. Health research, development and innovation in England from 1988 to 2013: from research production to knowledge mobilization. Journal of health services research & policy, 18, pp.1-12. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23986528.
    • Wilkinson, J.E. et al., 2012. A Creative Approach to the Development of an Agenda for Knowledge Utilization: Outputs from the 11th International Knowledge Utilization Colloquium (KU 11). Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 9(March), pp.195-199.
    • Wood, N., Rust, C. & (orne, G., 9. A tacit unders tanding: The designers role in capturing and passing on the skilled knowledge of master craftsmen. International Journal of Design, 3(3), pp.65-78.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article