|Co-create KT Step||Knowledge sought||Tool(s)||Strategies|
|Step 1: Initial contact and framing the issue.|
|Contact between the study context and research context occurs in response to a broadly phrased issue.||Information from the study context that covers a broad spectrum within the issue(s).||Data gathering tool(s) that will generate a pool of information from which subsequent inquiries can be refined.||View research as a means and not an end.|
|Establish a KT research lead and advisory team within the study.|
|Identify persons in both contexts as points of contact and information.|
|Issue: What is the health status of the people in Port Lincoln and how do they utilise health services?||Researcher context made initial inquiry of population-wide incidence of conditions.||Quantitative data tool:||Appointment of 3 boundary spanners.|
|Health Census – a written structured survey to population of study context via households.|
|Inclusion of local people as part of the Health Census operational delivery team.|
|Use of varied media to convey information about the research Create a presence and identity by participation in local public events.|
|Step 2: Refining and testing|
|Research team lead the knowledge refinement process (of data and local evidence into context-relevant knowledge) by obtaining the perspectives of multiple stakeholders.||
Contextual information to interpret the quantitative data.
Qualitative data on defined aspects of the initial issue.
|Community engagement strategies, participatory action research, information and knowledge products, communication strategies.||Use of an action research approach to methodically explore a problem within a designated context.|
|Use of facilitators, connectors, boundary spanners, knowledge brokers.|
Selection of four key issues such as specific health conditions and health service user groups in Port Lincoln.
Comparison of information gathered with other data sources such as national surveys.
Validation and explanation from the study context of the Health Census results.|
Knowledge that was related to the condition types nominated for further research. Knowledge on equity of experience within the study context. Knowledge on social determinants.
Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) results to be communicated to stakeholders and provide opportunity for input.
Production of recorded source data into accessible forms for the community (newsletters, project website, local radio, local newspaper, printed copies of data presentations).|
Consultation strategy that included identified stakeholders (health service providers, residents, and key organisations).
CATI (telephone) survey to ‘Health Census recontactees’ to obtain more condition specific information from study context.
Large scale campaign
Opportunities for open discussion (eg library).
Creation of knowledge products (newsletters, webpages, hard and electronic copies of data presentations).
Use of varied media channels (radio, newspaper, internet).
|Step 3: Interpreting, contextualising and adapting|
|Local evidence is refined and tested against the existing evidence. Contextual information is incorporated into the evidence base to provide a basis for adapting the knowledge to form the basis for intervention ‘prototypes’ to be introduced and tested in the study context.||Customising intervention for practitioners involved.||Methods of developing and/or canvassing options with those stakeholders affected.||Feedback to study context of interpretation of evidence base.|
|Development of options to address the issues.|
|Agreement on interpretation of implications of knowledge base. Identification and prioritisation of key aspects to address.|
|Part of the process of making knowledge useful: interpretation, negotiation, debate. The knowledge needs to be linked or related to what is already known or experienced within the community.|
|Audit and feedback mechanism to providers participating in the intervention development.|
|Participant observation, Questionnaires, Interviews, focus groups.|
|LINKIN EXAMPLE||What stakeholders think of current recommended best practice.||Questionnaires||Reference Bone and Joint literature review.|
|For the Bone and Joint condition group|
|Knowledge used to select features that will be addressed through pilot interventions.||Interviews, focus groups.|
|This step would involve the development of an intervention(s) that takes up community-based knowledge and is includes shaping by agents and participators within the context. The LINKIN study has not defined its interventions as yet.|
|Dialogue with stakeholders during the development of the intervention.|
|Perceived impact of intervention by study context.|
|Step 4: Implementing and evaluating|
|Involvement, trial uptake and response to interventions.||Evaluation data.||Communicate results and outcome of evaluation.||Consultation and evaluation strategies.|
|Extent and effectiveness of intervention uptake and implementation.|
|Use of knowledge utilisation strategies.|
|Use of knowledge utilisation measurement tools.|
|Use outcome measures for each level of the health system: patient level, health practitioner level and system (or organisational) level.|
|Community engaged in evaluating the interventions and modifications for ongoing use.|
|Qualitative data on why an intervention was successful or not effective, and how it could be improved.|
|An intervention will be evaluated in real-time to monitor its reception and response in the community. This step is framed by examining how we would define and resource the intervention.||Knowledge about the features of the intervention to retain in sustained interventions.||Routinely collected data (such as from audits).||Use of knowledge broker role.|
|Context appropriate responses to evaluation data and extent of agreement with evaluation data.|
|Semi-structured discussion groups.|
|An example could be how professionals might work better to facilitate referral pathways that work within Port Lincoln.||Perceived impact and sustainability of intervention by study context.|
|Establish an awareness of feedback being elicited at completion of evaluation.|
|Step 5: Embedding into context and translating to other contexts|
|Within the research context, evidence is formalised for local community and for the wider scientific community.||Knowledge that is to be included in final and lasting knowledge products.||Guidelines||Communication strategies of research outcomes and ongoing plans.|
|Following the intervention the research team leads consideration of how it might be sustained and in what form.||How might this influence funding packages and reform taking place in primary care?||Discussion groups with key agents and participators from context.||Inform the national health agenda|
|Use of guidelines and process documents.|
|Elements of the intervention that are particular to this context and how adaptable the intervention is to other contexts.|
|How does it lead to new research questions?|