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.
Abelson, J., P.-G. Forest, J. Eyles, P. Smith, E. Martin and F.-P. Gauvin (2003) `Deliberations about Deliberative Methods: Issues in the Design and Evaluation of Public Consultation Processes', Social Science and Medicine57: 239-51.
2.
Ainsworth, S.H. and I. Sened (1993) `The Role of Lobbyists: Entrepreneurs with Two Audiences', American Journal of Political Science37(3): 834-66.
3.
Amara, N., M. Ouimet and R. Landry (2004) `New Evidence on Instrumental, Conceptual, and Symbolic Utilization of University Research in Government Agencies', Science Communication26(1): 75-106.
4.
Austen-Smith, D. (1993) `Information and Influence: Lobbying for Agendas and Votes', American Journal of Political Science37(3): 799-833.
5.
Baumgartner, F.R. and B.L. Leech (1998) Basic Interests: The Importance of Groups in Politics and in Political Science. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
6.
Berry, J.M. (1997). The Interest Group Society, 3rd edn. New York: Longman.
7.
Beyer, J.M. and H.M. Trice (1982) `The Utilization Process: A Conceptual Framework and Synthesis of Empirical Findings', Administrative Science Quarterly27: 591-622.
8.
Black, N. (2001) `Evidence Based Policy: Proceed with Care', BMJ323(7307): 275-9.
9.
Brousselle, A., F. Champagne and A.-P. Contandriopoulos (2006) `Vers une réconciliation des théories et de la pratique de l'évaluation, perspectives d'avenir', Mesure et Évaluation en Éducation29(3): 57-73.
10.
Brousselle, A., L. Lamothe, C. Mercier and M. Perreault (2007) `Beyond the Limitations of Best Practices: How Program Theory Analysis Helped Reinterpret Dual Diagnosis Guidelines', Evaluation and Program Planning30(1): 94-104.
11.
Carpenter, D.P., K.M. Esterling and D.M.J. Lazer (1998) `The Strength of Weak Ties in Lobbying Networks: Evidence from Health-Care', Journal of Theoretical Politics10(4): 417-44.
12.
Carpenter, D.P., K.M. Esterling and D.M.J. Lazer (2003) `The Strength of Strong Ties: A Model of Contact-Making in Policy Networks with Evidence from US Health Politics', Rationality and Society15: 411-40.
13.
Carpenter, D.P., K.M. Esterling and D.M.J. Lazer (2004) `Friends, Brokers, and Transitivity: Who Informs Whom in Washington Politics?', Journal of Politics66(1): 224-46.
14.
Champagne, F., L. Lemieux-Charles and W. McGuire (2004) `Introduction: Towards a Broader Understanding of the Use of Knowledge and Evidence in Health Care', in L. Lemieux-Charles, F. Champagne and A. Langley (eds) Multiple Perspectives on Evidence-Based Decision-Making in Health Care, pp. 3-17. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
15.
Chsrf (2003) The Theory and Practice of Knowledge Brokering in Canada's Health System: Rapport. Ottawa: CHSRF/FCRSS.
16.
Chsrf (2005) `Conceptualiser et regrouper les données probantes pour guider le système de santé. Rapport' , URL (consulted May 2008): http://www.chsrf.ca/other_documents/pdf/evidence_f.pdf. Ottawa: CHSRF /FCRSS.
17.
Contandriopoulos, A.-P., F. Champagne, J.-L. Denis and M.C. Avargues (2000) `L'Évaluation dans le domaine de la santé: concepts et méthodes', Revue d'épidémiologie et santé publique48: 517-39.
18.
Contandriopoulos, D., A. Brousselle and N.M. Kêdoté (2008) `Evaluating Interventions Aimed at Promoting Information Utilization in Organizations and Systems', Health Policy89-107.
19.
Davis, P. and P. Howden-Chapman (1996) `Translating Research Findings into Health Policy', Social Science and Medicine43: 865-72.
20.
Denis, J.-L. and J. Lomas (2003) `Convergent Evolution: The Academic and Policy Roots of Collaborative Research', Journal of Health Services Research and Policy8(suppl 2): 1-6.
21.
Dobrow, M.J., V. Goel and R.E.G. Upshur (2004) `Evidence-Based Health Policy: Context and Utilisation' , Social Science and Medicine58: 207-17.
22.
Dobrow, M.J., V. Goel, L. Lemieux-Charles and N.A. Black (2006) `The Impact of Context on Evidence Utilization: A Framework for Expert Groups Developing Health Policy Recommendations', Social Science and Medicine63: 1811-24.
23.
Feldman, P.H., M. Gold and K. Chu (1997) `State Health Policy Information: What Worked?' , Health Affairs16: 207-10.
24.
Ferlie, E.B. and S.M. Shortell (2001) `Improving the Quality of Health Care in the United Kingdom and the United States: A Framework for Change', Milbank Quarterly79(2): 281-315.
25.
Frenk, J. (1992) `Balancing Relevance and Excellence: Organizational Responses to Link Research with Decision Making', Social Science and Medicine35: 397-404.
26.
Government of Quebec (2003) Bill 25 An Act Respecting Local Health and Social Services Network Development Agencies. Quebec: Quebec's National Assembly, First Session, Thirty-seventh Legislature.
27.
Hanney, S.R., M.A. Gonzalez-Block, M.J. Buxton and M. Kogan (2003) `The Utilisation of Health Research in Policy-Making: Concepts, Examples and Methods of Assessment', Health Research Policy and Systems1(2), URL (consulted May 2008): http://www.health-policy-systems.com/content/1/1/2.
28.
Jordan, G. (1991) The Commercial Lobbyists: Politics for Profit in Britain. Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press.
29.
Kingdon, J.W. (1995) Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. New York: Longman.
30.
Knott, J. and A. Wildavsky (1980) `If Dissemination is the Solution, What is the Problem?', Science Communication1(1): 537-78.
31.
Landry, R., M. Lamari and N. Amara (2003) `Extent and Determinants of Utilization of University Research in Government Agencies', Public Administration Review63(2): 191-204.
32.
Lavis, J., D. Roberston, J. Woodside, C.B. McLeod and J. Abelson (2003) `How Can Research Organizations More Effectively Transfer Research Knowledge to Decision-Makers', Milbank Quarterly81(2): 221-48.
33.
Lindblom, C. (1959) `The Science of "Muddling Through"', Public Administration Review19(2): 79-88.
34.
Lomas, J. (2005) `Using Research to Inform Healthcare Managers' and Policy Makers' Questions: From Summative to Interpretive Synthesis', Healthcare Policy1(1): 55.
35.
Milbrath, L.M. (1960) `Lobbying as a Communication Process', Public Opinion Quarterly24(1): 33-53.
36.
Milbrath, L.M. (1963) The Washington Lobbyist. Chicago : Rand McNally.
37.
Mitton, C., C.E. Adair, E. Mckenzie, S.B. Patten and B.W. Perry (2007) `Knowledge Transfer and Exchange: Review and Synthesis of the Literature', Milbank Quarterly85(4): 729-68.
38.
Morgan, M.A., J. Dana, G. Loewenstein, S. Zinberg and J. Schulkin (2006) `Interactions of Doctors with the Pharmaceutical Industry', Journal of Medical Ethics32: 559-63.
39.
Nutley, S., J. Percy-Smith and W. Solesbury (2003) Models of Research Impact: A Cross-Sector Review of Literature and Practice. London: Learning and Skills Research Centre.
Peterson, M.A. (1995) `How Health Policy Information is Used in Congress' , in T. E. Mann and N. J. Ornstein (eds) Intensive Care: How Congress Shapes Health Policy, pp. 79-125. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.
42.
Pineault, R., P. Tousignant, D. Roberge, P. Lamarche, D. Reinharz, D. Larouche, G. Beaulne and D. Lesage (2006) `The Research Collective: A Tool for Producing Timely, Context-Linked Research Syntheses', Healthcare Policy1(4): 58-75.
43.
Pineault, R., P. Tousignant, D. Roberge, P. Lamarche, D. Reinharz, D. Larouche, G. Beaulne and D. Lesage (2007) `Involving Decision-Makers in Producing Syntheses: The Case of the Research Collective on Primary Healthcare in Québec', Healthcare Policy2(4): 2-17.
44.
Pirkis, J.E., G.A. Blashki, A.W. Murphy, I.B. Hickie and L. Ciechomski (2006) `The Role of General Practitioner Based Research in the Development of National Policy: Case Studies from Ireland and Australia' , Australia and New Zealand Health Policy3(4).
45.
Roos, N.P. and E. Shapiro (1999) `From Research to Policy: What have we Learned?' , Medical Care37(suppl.): 291-305.
46.
Sabatier, P. A. and H. C. Jenkins-Smith, eds (1993) Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
47.
Sabatier, P.A. and H.C. Jenkins-Smith (1999) `The Advocacy Coalition Framework' , in P. A. Sabatier (ed.) Theories of the Policy Process: Theoretical Lenses on Public Policy, pp. 117-66. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
48.
Steinman, M.A., M.G. Shlipak and S.J. McPhee (2001) `Of Principles and Pens: Attitudes and Practices of Medicine Housestaff toward Pharmaceutical Industry Promotions', American Journal of Medicine110: 551-7.
49.
Webb, A.L. and G. Wistow (1986) Planning, Need and Scarcity: Essays on the Personal Social Services. London: Unwin Hyman .
50.
Weick, K.E. (1995) Sensemaking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
51.
Weiss, C. (1977) `Research for Policy's Sake: The Enlightenment Function of Social Research', Policy Analysis3: 531-45.
