IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v69y2009i3p411-419.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Spatially informed knowledge translation: Informing potential users of Canada's Compassionate Care Benefit

Author

Listed:
  • Giesbrecht, Melissa
  • Crooks, Valorie A.
  • Schuurman, Nadine
  • Williams, Allison

Abstract

Implemented in 2004 by the Canadian government, the Compassionate Care Benefit (CCB) program aims to provide income assistance and job security to caregivers who decide to take temporary leave from their employment to care for a terminally ill family member at risk of dying. Reports have cited numerous challenges with respect to the benefit's successful uptake, including the major obstacle of a general lack of awareness regarding the program's existence. Based on this knowledge, the present analysis aims to consider local contexts and potential barriers through engagement with the knowledge-to-action (KTA) cycle. Using an innovative and spatially informed three-step mixed-method analysis, we identify: (1) who likely CCB-eligible family caregivers are; (2) where these individuals' households are located; and (3) how best to get information about the CCB to them. Melding the findings from the three analytic steps generates a tailored path from which an information dissemination strategy can be guided (the intended action). Results indicate that targeted dissemination efforts undertaken outside of urban cores are likely to be most efficient in reaching potential or current CCB-eligible family caregivers. This strategy should be implemented through multiple formats and venues via two information pathways: (1) from key professionals to family caregivers and (2) from the community to the general public. Through employing a spatial perspective, these findings engage and usefully contribute to the KTA cycle process. Future involvement in the cycle will entail translating these findings for use in a decision-making context in order to implement an intervention. This approach can also be applied to other health and social programs where lack of awareness exists or for targeted interventions that require identifying specific populations.

Suggested Citation

  • Giesbrecht, Melissa & Crooks, Valorie A. & Schuurman, Nadine & Williams, Allison, 2009. "Spatially informed knowledge translation: Informing potential users of Canada's Compassionate Care Benefit," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 411-419, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:69:y:2009:i:3:p:411-419
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(09)00321-9
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. Formoso, Giulio & Marata, Anna Maria & Magrini, Nicola, 2007. "Social marketing: Should it be used to promote evidence-based health information?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(4), pages 949-953, February.
    2. Dobrow, Mark J. & Goel, Vivek & Lemieux-Charles, Louise & Black, Nick A., 2006. "The impact of context on evidence utilization: A framework for expert groups developing health policy recommendations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(7), pages 1811-1824, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Gaucher, Nathalie & Lantos, John & Payot, Antoine, 2013. "How do national guidelines frame clinical ethics practice? A comparative analysis of guidelines from the US, the UK, Canada and France," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 74-78.
    2. 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.
    3. Abelson, Julia & Forest, Pierre-Gerlier & Eyles, John & Casebeer, Ann & Martin, Elisabeth & Mackean, Gail, 2007. "Examining the role of context in the implementation of a deliberative public participation experiment: Results from a Canadian comparative study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(10), pages 2115-2128, May.
    4. Mark Rickinson & Connie Cirkony & Lucas Walsh & Jo Gleeson & Mandy Salisbury & Annette Boaz, 2021. "Insights from a cross-sector review on how to conceptualise the quality of use of research evidence," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-12, December.
    5. Montesanti, Stephanie Rose & Abelson, Julia & Lavis, John N. & Dunn, James R., 2015. "The value of frameworks as knowledge translation mechanisms to guide community participation practice in Ontario CHCs," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 223-231.
    6. Zardo, Pauline & Collie, Alex & Livingstone, Charles, 2014. "External factors affecting decision-making and use of evidence in an Australian public health policy environment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 120-127.
    7. Ward, Vicky & Smith, Simon & House, Allan & Hamer, Susan, 2012. "Exploring knowledge exchange: A useful framework for practice and policy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 74(3), pages 297-304.
    8. Lars K. Hallstrom & Glen T. Hvenegaard, 2021. "Fostering Evidence-Informed Decision-Making for Protected Areas through the Alberta Parks Social Science Working Group," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-15, February.
    9. Regier, Dean A. & Bentley, Colene & Mitton, Craig & Bryan, Stirling & Burgess, Michael M. & Chesney, Ellen & Coldman, Andy & Gibson, Jennifer & Hoch, Jeffrey & Rahman, Syed & Sabharwal, Mona & Sawka, , 2014. "Public engagement in priority-setting: Results from a pan-Canadian survey of decision-makers in cancer control," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 130-139.
    10. Formoso, Giulio & Font-Pous, Maria & Ludwig, Wolf-Dieter & Phizackerley, David & Bijl, Dick & Erviti, Juan & Pospíšilová, Blanka & Montastruc, Jean Louis, 2017. "Drug information by public health and regulatory institutions: Results of an 8-country survey in Europe," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(3), pages 257-264.

    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:69:y:2009:i:3:p:411-419. 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.