This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Nutley, S. Articles by Davies, H. T. O. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

From Knowing to Doing

A Framework for Understanding the Evidence-into-Practice Agenda

University of St Andrews, UK smm{at}st-and.ac.uk

Isabel Walter

University of St Andrews, UK iwa{at}st-and.ac.uk

Huw T. O. Davies

University of St Andrews, UK hd{at}st-and.ac.uk

The past decade has witnessed widespread interest in the development of policy and practice that is better informed by evidence. Enthusiasm has, however, been tempered by recognition of the difficulties of devising effective strategies to ensure that evidence is integrated into policy and utilized in practice. There is already a rich but diverse and widely dispersed literature that can be drawn upon to inform such strategies. This article offers a guide to this literature by focusing on six main interrelated concerns: (1) the types of knowledge relevant to understanding research utilization/evidence-based practice (RU/EBP) implementation; (2) the ways in which research knowledge is utilized; (3) models of the process of utilization; (4) the conceptual frameworks that enable us to understand the process of RU/EBP implementation; (5) the main ways of intervening to increase evidence uptake and the effectiveness of these; (6) different ways of conceptualizing what RU/EBP means in practice.

Key Words: evidence-based policy • evidence-based practice • knowledge utilization • research utilization

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				F. L. Leeuw and J.-E. Furubo Evaluation Systems: What Are They and Why Study Them? Evaluation, April 1, 2008; 14(2): 157 - 169. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. Sampson Developing Robust Approaches to Evaluating Social Programmes Evaluation, October 1, 2007; 13(4): 477 - 493. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. Parmar and A. Sampson Evaluating Domestic Violence Initiatives Br. J. Criminol., July 1, 2007; 47(4): 671 - 691. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. H. Brownstein From an Editorial Board Member: How Criminologists as Researchers Can Contribute to Social Policy and Practice Criminal Justice Policy Review, June 1, 2007; 18(2): 119 - 131. [Abstract] [PDF]

				P. Burton, R. Goodlad, and J. Croft How Would We Know What Works?: Context and Complexity in the Evaluation of Community Involvement Evaluation, July 1, 2006; 12(3): 294 - 312. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. Rycroft-Malone The politics of the evidencebased practice movements: Legacies and current challenges Journal of Research in Nursing, March 1, 2006; 11(2): 95 - 108. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. Martin Speeches and Addresses : Evaluation, Inspection and the Improvement Agenda: Contrasting Fortunes in an Era of Evidence-Based Policy-Making Evaluation, October 1, 2005; 11(4): 496 - 504. [PDF]

				M. Petticrew, M. Whitehead, S. J Macintyre, H. Graham, and M. Egan Evidence for public health policy on inequalities: 1: The reality according to policymakers J. Epidemiol. Community Health, October 1, 2004; 58(10): 811 - 816. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. Simons Utilizing Evaluation Evidence to Enhance Professional Practice Evaluation, October 1, 2004; 10(4): 410 - 429. [Abstract] [PDF]