Knowledge Translation and Social Epidemiology: Taking Power, Politics and Values Seriously

Chapter

Abstract

Although demand for evidence-based policies and programs to reduce population health inequities is intensifying, the influence of social epidemiology on public policy remains limited. In clinical and health services research domains, knowledge translation strategies have been developed to increase the impact of research evidence in policy making and practice. We review the applicability of these strategies for increasing the practical impact of social epidemiology research, drawing on the knowledge constitutive interests framework developed by Jürgen Habermas. We find that conventional knowledge translation characterizes policy change and the role of research in technical-instrumental terms that do not reflect the complex social, political and values-based dimensions of policy change and research use that come into play in relation to the reduction of health inequities. While conventional knowledge translation approaches may work in some cases, for social epidemiology to play a significant role in advancing social change, knowledge translation strategies that acknowledge and respond to the intersections of power, politics, values and science also need to be developed.

Abbreviations

CIHR

Canadian Institutes of Health Research

KT

knowledge translation

MMR

measles, mumps and rubella

References

  1. Asthana A, Halliday J (2006) What works in tackling health inequalities? Pathways, policies and practice through the lifecourse. The Polity Press, BristolGoogle Scholar
  2. Bacchi C (2008) The politics of research management: reflections on the gap between what we “know” and what we do. Health Soc Rev 17:165–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benoit C, Carroll D, Chaudhry M (2003) In search of a healing place: aboriginal women in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside. Soc Sci Med 56:821–833PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berkman L, Kawachi I (2000) Social epidemiology. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Bernal JD (1939) The social function of science. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  6. Bevir M, Rhodes R (2006) Governance stories. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. BiomedCentral (2010) About implementation science. http://www.implementationscience.com/info/about. Accessed 9 Aug 2010
  8. Braveman P (2006) Health disparities and health equity: concepts and measurement. Annu Rev Public Health 27:167–194PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burton P (2006) Modernising the policy process. Policy Stud 27:173–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Buxton M, Hanney S, Jones T (2004) Estimating the economic value to societies of the impact of health research: a critical review. Bull World Health Organ 82:733–739PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Carden F (2009) Knowledge to policy: making the most of development research. International Development Research Centre and Sage Publications, Ottawa/LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. Chernomas R, Hudson I (2009) Social murder: the long-term effects of conservative economic policy. Int J Health Serv 39:107–121PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Coburn D (2000) Income inequality, social cohesion and the health status of populations: the role of neo-liberalism. Soc Sci Med 51:135–146PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Commission on Social Determinants of Health (2008) Closing the gap in a generation: health equity through action on the social determinants of health. Final report of the Commission on Social Determinants of Health. World Health Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  15. Committee on Institutional Cooperation (2005) Resource guide and recommendations for defining and benchmarking engagement. CIC Committee on Engagement, ChampaignGoogle Scholar
  16. Daniels N (2008) Just health: meeting health needs fairly. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Deleon P (1999) The stages approach to the policy process: what has it done? Where is it going? In: Sabatier P (ed) Theories of the policy process. Westview Press, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  18. Dorfman L, Wallack L, Woodruff K (2005) More than a message: framing public health advocacy to change corporate practices. Health Educ Behav 32:320–336, Discussion 355–362PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dunn JR (2002) Housing and inequalities in health: s study of socioeconomic dimensions of housing and self reported health from a survey of Vancouver residents. J Epidemiol Community Health 56:671–681PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group (1992) Evidence-based medicine. JAMA 268:2420–2425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fafard P (2008) Evidence and healthy public policy: insights from health and political sciences. National Collaborating Centre for Healthy Public Policy. http://www.ccnpps.ca/docs/FafardEvidence08June.PDF. Accessed 8 Aug 2009
  22. Frankish CJ, Hwang SW, Quantz D (2005) Homelessness and health in Canada: research lessons and priorities. Can J Public Health 96:S23–S29PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Gagnon ML (2011) Moving knowledge to action through dissemination and exchange. J Clin Epidemiol 64:25–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Graham H (2004) Social determinants and their unequal distribution: clarifying policy understandings. Milbank Q 82:101–124PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Graham ID, Tetroe J (2007) How to translate health research knowledge into effective healthcare action. Healthc Q 10:20–22PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Graham ID, Harrison MB, Cerniuk B et al (2007) A community-researcher alliance to improve chronic wound care. Healthc Policy 2:72–78PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Habermas J (1971) Knowledge and human interests. Beacon Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  28. Helfand M, Buckley DI, Freeman M et al (2009) Emerging risk factors for coronary heart disease: a summary of systematic reviews conducted for the U.S. preventive services task force. Ann Intern Med 151:496–507PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Howlett M, Ramesh M, Perl A (2009) Studying public policy: policy cycles & policy subsystems, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Don MillsGoogle Scholar
  30. Kingdon JW (2003) Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Longman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Krieger N (2001) A glossary for social epidemiology. J Epidemiol Community Health 55:693–700PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Krieger N, Alegria M, Almeida-Filho J et al (2010) Who, and what, causes health inequities? Reflections on emerging debates from an exploratory Latin American/North American workshop. J Epidemiol Community Health 64:747–749PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lemieux-Charles L, Champagne F (eds) (2004) Using knowledge and evidence in health care: multidisciplinary perspectives. University of Toronto Press, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  34. Leone R, Carroll BW (2010) Decentralisation and devolution in Canadian social housing policy. Environ Plann C Gov Policy 28:389–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Limoges C, Schwartzman S, Nowotny H et al (1994) The new production of knowledge: the dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Sage Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar
  36. Lomas J (2003) Health services research: more lessons from Kaiser Permanente and Veterans’ affairs healthcare system. BMJ 327:1301–1302PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lomas J, Fulop N, Gagnon D et al (2003) On being a good listener: setting priorities for applied health services research. Milbank Q 81:363–388PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Merton RK (1973) The sociology of science: theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago University Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  39. Mosca L, Appel LJ, Benjamin EJ et al (2004) Evidence-based guidelines for cardiovascular disease prevention in women. Circulation 109:672–693PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Murphy K, Topple R (eds) (2003) Measuring the gains from medical research an economic approach. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  41. Murphy K, van der Meulen A (2008) What counts, who counts? Research, values, politics and the health of marginalized populations. In: Poster presented at The Summer Institute on KSTE Action, National Collaborating Centres for Public Health, KelownaGoogle Scholar
  42. Oakes JM, Kaufman JS (2006) Methods in social epidemiology. Jossey-Bass, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  43. Orsini M, Smith M (2010) Social movements, knowledge and public policy: the case of autism activism in Canada and the US. Crit Policy Stud 4:38–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pablos-Mendez A, Shademani R (2006) Knowledge translation in global health. J Contin Educ Health Prof 26:81–86PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Raphael D (2003) Addressing the social determinants of health in Canada: bridging the gap between research findings and public policy. Policy Options/Politiques. www.irpp.org/po/archive/mar03/raphael.pdf. Accessed 10 Nov 2008
  46. Rose H, Rose S (1970) Science and society. Penguin, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  47. Sabatier P, Jenkins-Smith H (1999) The advocacy coalition framework: an assessment. In: Sabatier PA (ed) Theories of the policy process. Westview Press, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  48. Sackett DL, Strauss S, Richardson SR et al (2000) Evidence-based medicine: how to practice and teach EBM, 2nd edn. Churchill Livingstone, LondonGoogle Scholar
  49. Savitz DA, Poole C, Miller WC (1999) Reassessing the role of epidemiology in public health. Am J Public Health 89:1158–1161PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Straus S, Tetroe J, Graham I (2009a) Defining knowledge translation. CMAJ 181:3–4Google Scholar
  51. Straus S, Tetroe J, Graham I (eds) (2009b) Knowledge translation in health care: moving from evidence to practice. Wiley-Blackwell, MississaugaGoogle Scholar
  52. Tibelius K, Stirling L (2007) Research capacity development and knowledge translation at CIHR. In: Presentation at the annual meeting of the Association of Faculties of Medicine of Canada, VictoriaGoogle Scholar
  53. Weed DL, Mink PJ (2002) Roles and responsibilities of epidemiologists. Ann Epidemiol 12:67–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Weiss CH (1979) The many meanings of research utilization. Public Adm Rev 39:426–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wilkinson R, Pickett K (2009) The spirit level: why more equal societies almost always do better. Allen Lane, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Research on Inner City HealthSt. Michael’s HospitalTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Graduate School of Public and International AffairsUniversity of OttawaOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations