Search

Background: Devolution and integration of health and social care have placed increasing pressure on local statutory services, with a corresponding shift of health and social care to community organisations. The voluntary and charitable sector (VCS) is expected to make the case for increased funding by providing evidence of value and impact. Aims and objectives: This paper explores the challenges of compiling evidence on health outcomes which do not reflect the holistic nature of VCS support. We document how knowledge brokering can be used to enable the VCS to generate evidence. Key conclusions: Knowledge brokering (KB) may be an effective approach for developing community-generated evidence. Brokering is also needed to change perspectives on what counts as good evidence.

Social impact, defined as an effect on society, culture, quality of life, community services, or public policy beyond academia, is widely considered as a relevant requirement for scientific research, especially in the field of health care. Traditionally, in health research, the process of knowledge transfer is rather linear and one-sided and has not recognized and integrated the expertise of practitioners and those who use services. This can lead to discrimination or disqualification of knowledge and epistemic injustice. Epidemic injustice is a situation wherein certain kinds of knowers and knowledge are not taken seriously into account to define a situation. The purpose of our article is to explore how health researchers can achieve social impact for a wide audience, involving them in a non-linear process of joint learning on urgent problems recognized by the various stakeholders in public health. In participatory health research impact is not preordained by one group of stakeholders, but the result of a process of reflection and dialog with multiple stakeholders on what counts as valuable outcomes. This knowledge mobilization and winding pathway embarked upon during such research have the potential for impact along the way as opposed to the expectation that impact will occur merely at the end of a research project. We will discuss and illustrate the merits of taking a negotiated, discursive and flexible pathway in the area of community-based health promotion.

Aims: User involvement is pivotal for health development, but there are significant gaps in our understanding of the concept. The Copenhagen Diabetes Consensus on User Involvement in Diabetes Care, Prevention and Research (CODIAC) was established to address these gaps, share knowledge and develop best practices. Methods: A literature review of user involvement was undertaken in diabetes care, prevention and research. Moreover, a Group Concept Mapping (GCM) survey synthesized the knowledge and opinions of researchers, healthcare professionals and people with diabetes and their carers to identify gaps between what is important for user involvement and what is being done in practice. Finally, a consensus conference discussed the main gaps in knowledge and practice while developing plans to address the shortcomings. Results: The literature review demonstrated that user involvement is an effective strategy for diabetes care, prevention and research, given the right support and conditions, but gaps and key challenges regarding the value and impact of user involvement approaches were found. The GCM process identified 11 major gaps, where important issues were not being sufficiently practised. The conference considered these gaps and opportunities to develop new collaborative initiatives under eight overall themes. Conclusions: User involvement is effective and adds value to diabetes care, prevention and research when used under the right circumstances. CODIAC developed new learning about the way in which academic and research knowledge can be transferred to more practice‐oriented knowledge and concrete collaborative initiatives. This approach may be a potential new framework for initiatives in which coherence of process can lead to coherent outputs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sociology of sport began to take shape as a subdiscipline in the mid-1960s, and the quotes presented in the first part of this article provide a useful orientation to this formative period and to some of the most important developments in methodologies, theoretical frameworks, and topics of study that have occurred since then. This article offers an overview of the growth of the subdiscipline and a look to the future, with special attention to intersections between sport sociology and the larger discipline of kinesiology. Although the author will give less attention to the discipline of sociology, it is important to note that the subdiscipline was forged by joint efforts of scholars from both fields. (Contains 2 tables.)