This article outlines a comprehensive approach to facilitating the transfer of research into practice. It discusses three main issues: 1) Activities should be seen as long-term efforts rather than isolated events; 2) There are multiple audiences (policymakers, practitioners, study populations) that can benefit from research; and 3) Multiple modes (meetings, training, disseminating existing research) are needed to effectively transfer research into practice. The approach encompasses considering stakeholders' needs, building relationships between researchers and practitioners over time, and tailoring training to strengthen utilization of research findings.

1. Research into practice: a
comprehensive approach
Jens Aagaard-Hansen and Annette Olsen
This article outlines a comprehensive approach to facilitating the transfer of research into
practice. It encompasses three main issues of importance: activities should be seen as part of
a long-term endeavour rather than isolated one-off events; there are many audiences which
may make use of the research findings in various ways; and there are many modes in which
the process can be facilitated.
KEY WORDS: Methods
Introduction
Recent years have seen increased emphasis on the importance of conveying research findings to
stakeholders and practitioners outside academia. A search for the term ‘research into practice’
on the Internet provided 16,600,000 hits (Google: 20 December 2007). Although communi-
cation processes play a central role, there is more to ‘research into practice’ than good com-
munication and access to information. Often practitioners work in contexts where scarce
resources, political constraints, and short timelines make the ideal of evidence-based practice
very remote. This article presents a comprehensive approach to facilitating the transfer of
research into practice (henceforth termed RintoP) which has been developed at the Centre
for Health Research and Development (DBL) in Copenhagen. We refer to the health sector,
but we contend that the principles pertain to other sectors as well. Due to the mandate of
DBL, the focus will be on least-developed countries.1
The approach
There are three overall issues of importance, as follows.
The time dimension
Like development in general, RintoP processes should be conceptualised as being a long-term
effort. One isolated workshop or training course is not expected to have much impact.
ISSN 0961-4524 Print/ISSN 1364-9213 Online 030381-5 # 2009 Oxfam GB 381
Routledge Publishing DOI: 10.1080/09614520902808191
Development in Practice, Volume 19, Number 3, May 2009

2. Multi-audience
People with an interest in this issue often talk about ‘research into policy’. This expression
points to one important way in which research can influence practice. If research findings
inform the way in which ‘policies’ are formulated (new national guidelines for treatment, for
example), this truly has an impact, and the policy can be said to be evidence-based. Similarly,
research can influence the recommendations of international agencies (such as WHO or
UNICEF). But there are also other audiences that may benefit from the research findings.
The study populations are entitled to feedback. In some cases (for example, studies of basic
immunological mechanisms) this will not be useful. Quite often, however, the findings of
more practical (biomedical or health social science) studies may be of direct relevance to the
community, and in such cases the researchers are obliged to disseminate them in an appropriate
way. The most neglected ‘audience’ is most likely to be the practitioners at district or provincial
levels, such as District Medical Officers or Public Health Nurses whose daily work involves
them in various combinations of clinical work and planning. But we also think of NGO
workers and desk officers working in provincial administrations who are responsible for
evidence-based planning, including the selection of priority areas and resource allocation.
Researchers are well advised to communicate their findings also to this category of persons,
for instance in the form of ‘policy briefs’. Thus, there are four groups of stakeholders: national
policy makers, international policy makers, the study population, and various local-level
practitioners.
Multi-modality
In our experience, many different operational modalities are necessary to facilitate an effective
RintoP process.
Forging links between researchers and practitioners: For exchange to happen, researchers and
practitioners have to be in contact with each other. This can happen in many ways, but meetings
are a very appropriate form. Apart from facilitating the exchange of available research findings,
the participants at such meetings can identify future research questions. In addition, less
tangible but maybe even more important, the mere fact that the stakeholders get together
forges networks and informal channels of communication. And, last but not least for these
activities, a long-term perspective is important so that relationships are gradually built.
Facilitating formulation of health research priorities: Within health research it has been shown
that there is a gross imbalance between distribution of the global burden of disease and the funds
invested in health research. This has been formulated as the 10/90 gap, i.e. 10 per cent of the
resources for health research are allocated to the health problems of 90 per cent of the world’s
population, and vice versa (Global Forum for Health Research 2002). Consequently it has been
recommended to formulate Essential National Health Research (ENHR) priorities (Commission
on Health Research for Development 1990; WHO 2004). This is of course important for
the allocation of funds in resource-poor settings. But it has additional relevance for RintoP.
Basically, research is more likely to be used if it has been conducted on topics where the
potential end-users have identified the knowledge gaps (Walley et al. 2007). As part of
RintoP facilitation it may be necessary to assist countries in formulating ENHR priorities.
This point touches upon big discussions that are beyond the scope of this article: they
concern freedom of research, priority setting in research councils, and the balance between
basic and applied research.
382 Development in Practice, Volume 19, Number 3, May 2009
Jens Aagaard-Hansen and Annette Olsen

3. Training students: Most institutions of higher education are aware that the training of students
does not cover solely the technical skills that pertain to the discipline in question (e.g. medicine
or anthropology). There are a number of generic competences (e.g. writing or oral presentation
skills) that are necessary for all researchers. During the past decade we have put increasing
emphasis on the students’ dissemination skills, as well as a more ‘ideological’ encouragement
to ‘take the extra step’ and feel obliged to convey the research findings to the potential end-users
in an appropriate form. This is done partly as modules of research-methodology courses and
partly as practical events where the students write policy briefs or participate in feedback
sessions where they face the study population in order to convey their main findings. These
feedback sessions often lead to interesting discussions in which the students also gain new
insights and new research questions emerge.
Disseminating ‘dormant research’: The phenomenon ‘grey literature’ refers to the many
reports, theses, and other documents that have been produced through often extensive labour,
but which have never been published in a way that makes them accessible to a broader audience.
They will be available only in a few copies within specific organisations and institutes. It is a
problem with both financial and ethical implications that researchers may inadvertently repli-
cate what has already been done, and that practitioners do not have access to the findings.
We have found that it is possible to assist other institutions in ‘re-vitalising dormant research’.
It is feasible for one or two external facilitators to arrange a workshop with candidates from a
research institute and facilitate the writing process, partly for the production of scientific articles
and partly for ‘policy briefs’. The disciplinary background of the facilitators is of course import-
ant, but we have found that there need not be a complete disciplinary match. If the facilitators
have good analytical skills and experience in publication, it is often possible for them to give
advice outside their own fields.
Training practitioners in the basics of research methodology: RintoP is a process involving
two main parties: the researchers and the practitioners. Above we have described ways in
which the two groups can meet, and ways in which researchers can improve the dissemina-
tion of results more effectively. The present point deals with the practitioners’ ability to
access and comprehend the research findings, as well as how they may sometimes engage
more actively in generating new information. The first step is to access existing knowledge.
This may be achieved by simple courses in how to conduct a literature search. However,
even when the relevant articles have been identified, there will often be problems of
understanding them and making a critical assessment of their quality. This can be addressed
by providing short courses on various aspects of (quantitative and qualitative) research
methodology, tailored to individual group needs (Aagaard-Hansen and Yoder 2007). In
some cases the practitioners realise that there are no references to be found. That may
lead to the practitioners themselves commissioning an external research team, in which
case basic knowledge about research methodologies will enable them to formulate more
appropriate research questions and ensure better quality control. Finally, the practitioners
themselves may want to (and have the means to) conduct small research projects on concrete
problems in their daily work. In such cases additional training may be needed (for example,
proposal-writing workshops), and it may be an advantage to establish a link to experienced
researchers, who may provide guidance on-line and/or in the field during the various phases
of the process. DBL has developed ‘research methodology light’ courses which target these
needs. Their content is flexible and adapted to the level of the participants, their needs, and
the time available.
Development in Practice, Volume 19, Number 3, May 2009 383
Research into practice: a comprehensive approach

4. Conclusion
With a focus on least-developed countries, this article outlines a number of essential elements to
be considered when facilitating the transfer of Research into Practice. There are three overall
priorities:
1 Activities should be seen as part of a long-term endeavour rather than isolated one-off
events.
2 There are many audiences that may make use of the research findings, in various ways. They
comprise four groups of stakeholders, namely national policy makers, international policy
makers, the study population, and local-level practitioners.
3 There are many ways in which the process can be facilitated. These include forging links
between researchers and practitioners, facilitating the formulation of health research priorities,
training students to become good communicators and change agents, activating ‘dormant
research’, and training practitioners.
We recommend the adoption of a comprehensive approach such as this when seeking to transfer
research into practice.
Acknowledgements
The article is based on a synthesis of our previous work, conducted within a variety of committees,
projects, networks, development agencies, institutions of higher education, and programmes to strengthen
research capacity and health research. We are profoundly thankful to our many colleagues and collabor-
ators in South and North from whom we have learned a lot over the years.
Note
1. DBL has a double mandate: (1) to conduct research on water-related, vector-borne, parasitic diseases
and related health problems in the least-developed countries; and (2) to strengthen research capacity in
these countries.
References
Aagaard-Hansen, Jens and P. Stanley Yoder (2007) Buying Research. A Customers’ Guide,
Copenhagen: DBL.
Commission on Health Research for Development (1990) Health Research – Essential Link to Equity in
Development, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Global Forum for Health Research (2002) The 10/90 Report on Health Research 2001–2002,
Geneva: Global Forum for Health Research.
Walley, John, M. Khan Amir, Sayed Shah Karam, Sophie Witter, and Xiaolin Wei (2007) ‘How to get
research into practice: first get practice into research’, Bulletin of the World Health Organization 85 (6): 424.
WHO (2004) World Report on Knowledge for Better Health. Strengthening Health Systems,
Geneva: WHO.
The authors
Jens Aagaard-Hansen (corresponding author), who is Senior Researcher in DBL, has a double
background as medical doctor and anthropologist. He has been involved in research-capacity building,
teaching, and applied cross-disciplinary projects in developing countries for the past 15 years.
384 Development in Practice, Volume 19, Number 3, May 2009
Jens Aagaard-Hansen and Annette Olsen

5. Annette Olsen is Senior Researcher with 20 years’ experience of training and research activities in
relation to DBL’s research-capacity strengthening programme. Her research focus is on the epidemiology
and control of soil-transmitted helminth infections. She has supervised numerous post-graduate students
and she lectures on research methodology as part of the approach to facilitate the transfer of research
into practice.
Development in Practice, Volume 19, Number 3, May 2009 385
Research into practice: a comprehensive approach