When Health Systems Consider Research to Be Beyond the Scope of Healthcare Delivery, Research Translation Is Crippled

Abstract

Edelman and colleagues’ analysis of the views of Board members of Australian Research Translation Centres (RTCs) is well timed. There has been little study of Australian RTCs to date. We focus on their recommendations regarding knowledge mobilisation (KM) to open broader debate on the wisdom of regarding UK practices as a blueprint. We go further and ask whether successful RTCs might, as a result of responding to local context, create idiosyncratic structures and solutions, making generalisable learning less likely? There has been much invested in Australian RTCs and implications of government’s formative evaluation of their work is discussed. Five recommendations are made that could help RTCs: allowing system end-users a greater say in funding decisions, taking a broader, more democratic approach to kinds of knowledge that are valued; investing in methodologies derived from the innovation space; and, a creative attention to governance to support these ideas. Keywords: Co-Production, Design Thinking, Impact, Knowledge Mobilisation, Context, Research Funding Copyright: © 2022 The Author(s); Published by Kerman University of Medical Sciences. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Citation: Jorm C, Piper D. When health systems consider research to be beyond the scope of healthcare delivery, research translation is crippled: Comment on “Academic health science centres as vehicles for knowledge mobilisation in Australia? A qualitative study.” Int J Health Policy Manag.