title: Using Logic Analysis to Evaluate Knowledge Transfer Initiatives: The Case of the Research Collective on the Organization of Primary Care Services.
abstract: Models that shift more responsibility onto researchers for the process of incorporating research results into decision-making have greatly gained in popularity during the past two decades. This shift has created a new area of research to identify the best ways to transfer academic results into the organizational and political arenas. However, evaluating the utilization of information coming out of a knowledge transfer (KT) initiative remains an enormous challenge. This article demonstrates how logic analysis has proven to be a useful evaluation method to assess the utilization potential of KT initiatives. We present the case of the evaluation of the Research Collective on the Organization of Primary Care Services, an innovative experiment in knowledge synthesis and transfer. The conclusions focus not only on the utilization potential of results coming out of the Research Collective, but also on the theoretical framework used, in order to facilitate its application to the evaluation of other knowledge transfer initiatives.
authors.affiliation: Department of Health Administration and at the Groupe de Recherche Interdisciplinaire en Santé (GRIS).
authors.forename: Astrid
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Brousselle
authors.forename: Damien
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Contandriopoulos
authors.forename: Marc
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Lemire
keywords: case study; evaluation; information utilization; knowledge transfer; logic analysis
references.citation: Eval Program Plann. 2007 Feb;30(1):94-104
references.pmid: 17689316
references.citation: BMJ. 2001 Aug 4;323(7307):275-9
references.pmid: 11485961
references.citation: Healthc Policy. 2007 May;2(4):e193-209
references.pmid: 19305728
references.citation: Health Res Policy Syst. 2003 Jan 13;1(1):2
references.pmid: 12646071
references.citation: Soc Sci Med. 1996 Sep;43(5):865-72
references.pmid: 8870150
references.citation: Healthc Policy. 2008 Aug;4(1):89-107
references.pmid: 19377345
references.citation: Med Care. 1999 Jun;37(6 Suppl):JS291-305
references.pmid: 10409016
references.citation: Milbank Q. 2003;81(2):221-48, 171-2
references.pmid: 12841049
references.citation: Aust New Zealand Health Policy. 2006 May 11;3:4
references.pmid: 16686961
references.citation: Healthc Policy. 2005 Sep;1(1):55-71
references.pmid: 19308103
references.citation: Am J Med. 2001 May;110(7):551-7
references.pmid: 11347622
references.citation: Milbank Q. 2007 Dec;85(4):729-68
references.pmid: 18070335
references.citation: Healthc Policy. 2006 May;1(4):58-75
references.pmid: 19305681
references.citation: Health Aff (Millwood). 1997 Jan-Feb;16(1):207-10
references.pmid: 9018960
references.citation: Soc Sci Med. 2003 Jul;57(2):239-51
references.pmid: 12765705
references.citation: Milbank Q. 2001;79(2):281-315
references.pmid: 11439467
references.citation: J Health Serv Res Policy. 2003 Oct;8 Suppl 2:1-6
references.pmid: 14596741
references.citation: J Med Ethics. 2006 Oct;32(10):559-63
references.pmid: 17012493
references.citation: Soc Sci Med. 2006 Oct;63(7):1811-24
references.pmid: 16764980
references.citation: Soc Sci Med. 1992 Dec;35(11):1397-404
references.pmid: 1462179
references.citation: Soc Sci Med. 2004 Jan;58(1):207-17
references.pmid: 14572932
references.citation: Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique. 2000 Dec;48(6):517-39
references.pmid: 11148425
references.citation: Mes Eval Educ. 2006;29(3):57-73
references.pmid: 23997420