IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v246y2020ics0277953619307269.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Translating healthcare research evidence into practice: The role of linked boundary objects

Author

Listed:
  • Melo, Sara
  • Bishop, Simon

Abstract

Recent years have seen widespread interest in the process of evidence implementation and growth of implementation science. Whilst this work has drawn attention to the challenges and complexities of implementing evidence into everyday practice, for the most part, studies of implementation uphold the ideal of a linear ‘pipeline’ between research and front-line care. In contrast, this paper adopts a practice perspective on knowledge, and draws on science and technology studies concepts to identify how the socio-material environment contributes to the translation of evidence across multiple organisational and professional boundaries. Findings report on a qualitative case study of implementing fall prevention research evidence at a large teaching hospital in Portugal. Data is from forty-six in-depth semi-structured interviews with clinical and non-clinical staff.

Suggested Citation

  • Melo, Sara & Bishop, Simon, 2020. "Translating healthcare research evidence into practice: The role of linked boundary objects," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:246:y:2020:i:c:s0277953619307269
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112731
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953619307269
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112731?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul R. Carlile, 2004. "Transferring, Translating, and Transforming: An Integrative Framework for Managing Knowledge Across Boundaries," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(5), pages 555-568, October.
    2. Ruey‐Lin Hsiao & Dun‐Hou Tsai & Ching‐Fang Lee, 2012. "Collaborative Knowing: The Adaptive Nature of Cross‐Boundary Spanning," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(3), pages 463-491, May.
    3. Paul R. Carlile, 2002. "A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary Objects in New Product Development," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(4), pages 442-455, August.
    4. Sobo, Elisa J. & Bowman, Candice & Gifford, Allen L., 2008. "Behind the scenes in health care improvement: The complex structures and emergent strategies of Implementation Science," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 67(10), pages 1530-1540, November.
    5. Waring, Justin & Currie, Graeme & Crompton, Amanda & Bishop, Simon, 2013. "An exploratory study of knowledge brokering in hospital settings: Facilitating knowledge sharing and learning for patient safety?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 79-86.
    6. Kimble, Chris & Grenier, Corinne & Goglio-Primard, Karine, 2010. "Innovation and knowledge sharing across professional boundaries: Political interplay between boundary objects and brokers," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 437-444.
    7. Evans, Sarah & Scarbrough, Harry, 2014. "Supporting knowledge translation through collaborative translational research initiatives: ‘Bridging’ versus ‘blurring’ boundary-spanning approaches in the UK CLAHRC initiative," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 119-127.
    8. Davide Nicolini & Jeanne Mengis & Jacky Swan, 2012. "Understanding the Role of Objects in Cross-Disciplinary Collaboration," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(3), pages 612-629, June.
    9. Stoopendaal, Annemiek & Bal, Roland, 2013. "Conferences, tablecloths and cupboards: How to understand the situatedness of quality improvements in long-term care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 78-85.
    10. Esther Turnhout, 2009. "The effectiveness of boundary objects: the case of ecological indicators," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 36(5), pages 403-412, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Fleming, Mark D. & Safaeinili, Nadia & Knox, Margae & Hernandez, Elizabeth & Brewster, Amanda L., 2023. "Between health care and social services: Boundary objects and cross-sector collaboration," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 320(C).
    2. Barbara Groot & Tineke Abma, 2021. "Boundary Objects: Engaging and Bridging Needs of People in Participatory Research by Arts-Based Methods," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(15), pages 1-11, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Omid Omidvar & Roman Kislov, 2016. "R&D Consortia As Boundary Organisations: Misalignment And Asymmetry Of Boundary Management," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(02), pages 1-24, February.
    2. Caccamo, Marta & Pittino, Daniel & Tell, Fredrik, 2023. "Boundary objects, knowledge integration, and innovation management: A systematic review of the literature," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    3. Sajtos, Laszlo & Rouse, Paul & Harrison, Julie & Parsons, Matthew, 2014. "Case-mix system as a boundary object: the case of home care services," Australasian marketing journal, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 189-196.
    4. Michael J.D. Roberts & Paul W. Beamish, 2017. "The Scaffolding Activities of International Returnee Executives: A Learning Based Perspective of Global Boundary Spanning," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(4), pages 511-539, June.
    5. Alberto Franco, L., 2013. "Rethinking Soft OR interventions: Models as boundary objects," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 231(3), pages 720-733.
    6. Klerkx, Laurens & van Bommel, Severine & Bos, Bram & Holster, Henri & Zwartkruis, Joyce V. & Aarts, Noelle, 2012. "Design process outputs as boundary objects in agricultural innovation projects: Functions and limitations," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 39-49.
    7. Karimikia, Hadi & Bradshaw, Robert & Singh, Harminder & Ojo, Adegboyega & Donnellan, Brian & Guerin, Michael, 2022. "An emergent taxonomy of boundary spanning in the smart city context – The case of smart Dublin," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    8. Andreas P. J. Schotter & Ram Mudambi & Yves L. Doz & Ajai Gaur, 2017. "Boundary Spanning in Global Organizations," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(4), pages 403-421, June.
    9. Krafft, Manfred & Sajtos, Laszlo & Haenlein, Michael, 2020. "Challenges and Opportunities for Marketing Scholars in Times of the Fourth Industrial Revolution," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 1-8.
    10. Claudio Biscaro & Anna Comacchio, 2018. "Knowledge Creation Across Worldviews: How Metaphors Impact and Orient Group Creativity," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 289(1), pages 58-79, February.
    11. Pier Vittorio Mannucci, 2017. "Drawing Snow White and Animating Buzz Lightyear: Technological Toolkit Characteristics and Creativity in Cross-Disciplinary Teams," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(4), pages 711-728, August.
    12. Jérôme Queste & Tom Wassenaar, 2019. "A practical dialogue protocol for sustainability science to contribute to regional resources management: its implementation in Réunion," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 43(1), pages 3-16, February.
    13. Anna Jonsson & Maria Grafström & Mikael Klintman, 2022. "Unboxing knowledge in collaboration between academia and society: A story about conceptions and epistemic uncertainty [De-essentializing the Knowledge Intensive Firm: Reflections on Skeptical Resea," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(4), pages 583-597.
    14. Siw M. Fosstenløkken, 2019. "The Role Of Plans In The Formation Of A New Innovation Practice: An Innovation Object Perspective," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 23(04), pages 1-23, May.
    15. Sylvain Lenfle & Jonas Söderlund, 2019. "Large-Scale Innovative Projects as Temporary Trading Zones: Toward an Interlanguage Theory," Post-Print hal-02390158, HAL.
    16. Dean A. Shepherd & Marc Gruber, 2021. "The Lean Startup Framework: Closing the Academic–Practitioner Divide," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 45(5), pages 967-998, September.
    17. Lantto, Anna-Maija, 2022. "Obtaining entity-specific information and dealing with uncertainty: Financial accountants' response to their changing work of financial reporting and the role of boundary objects," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    18. Alamad, Samir & Hidayah, Nunung Nurul & Lowe, Alan, 2021. "A shared boundary object: Financial innovation and engineering in Islamic financial institutions," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(3).
    19. William C. Barley, 2015. "Anticipatory Work: How the Need to Represent Knowledge Across Boundaries Shapes Work Practices Within Them," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(6), pages 1612-1628, December.
    20. Paul M. Leonardi & Diane E. Bailey & Casey S. Pierce, 2019. "The Coevolution of Objects and Boundaries over Time: Materiality, Affordances, and Boundary Salience," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 30(2), pages 665-686, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:246:y:2020:i:c:s0277953619307269. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.