Porovnat metody
Prohlédněte si vybrané metody vedle sebe; řádky, které se liší, jsou zvýrazněny.
| Přenos znalostí× | Taxonomie výsledků implementace× | |
|---|---|---|
| Obor | Implementační věda | Implementační věda |
| Rodina | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Rok vzniku≠ | 2004 | 2011 |
| Tvůrce≠ | Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) | Proctor, E. K., Silmere, H., Raghavan, R., et al. |
| Typ≠ | Framework | Taxonomy |
| Původní zdroj≠ | Canadian Institutes of Health Research. (2004). Knowledge Translation Strategy 2004-2009. CIHR, Ottawa. link ↗ | Proctor, E. K., Silmere, H., Raghavan, R., Hovmand, P., Aarons, G. A., Bunger, A., ... & Rojas, D. (2011). Outcomes for implementation research: Conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 38(2), 65-76. DOI ↗ |
| Další názvy | KT, evidence-to-practice, research-to-practice | implementation outcomes, Proctor framework, implementation success measures |
| Příbuzné | 5 | 5 |
| Shrnutí≠ | Knowledge Translation (KT) is the systematic synthesis, dissemination, exchange, and application of research findings to improve health outcomes and healthcare practice. First formalized by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research in 2004, KT recognizes that evidence generation alone does not automatically change clinical or policy behaviour, and structures a purposeful process to bridge the gap between research and practice. | The Implementation Outcome Taxonomy is a framework defining eight measurable dimensions for assessing implementation success: Acceptability, Adoption, Appropriateness, Feasibility, Fidelity, Implementation Cost, Penetration, and Sustainability. Developed by Proctor et al. (2011), it provides a standardized vocabulary and measurement approach to distinguish implementation process outcomes (how well was the intervention delivered?) from clinical outcomes (did patients get better?). This taxonomy is foundational to implementation science because it acknowledges that an evidence-based intervention can be effective (clinical outcome) but poorly implemented (implementation outcome), or feasible to deliver but not adopted by organizations. |
| ScholarGateDatová sada ↗ |
|
|