From research to practice in prevention of accidents at work

Background and aim: There has been a tremendous increase in published papers over the years in the safety science field as in other fields. Whether this always provides a complete picture of the achievements of a scientific field, is something that is increasingly being questioned. Not to say, that we should not publish in scientific peer reviewed journals, this is indeed very important. However, this is not the only quality of a research field. The field of safety is a much applied discipline, like a number of other disciplines, such as medicine, engineering and management. As expressed by Professor Andrew Hale in his valedictory speech at Delft University of Technology (2006):

“Have we spread our knowledge to enough of the right people to do something about the risks we have so assiduously studied?” … ”The proof of its pudding is in the success of the changes it brings about in the real world and, like all applied sciences, a lot of its work is written up only in conference papers, company and government reports”(Hale, Valedictory speech 2006).

The demand for better use of research findings is increasing, and this demand is in particular coming from outside the field of occupational safety and health (OSH). Evidence-based interventions have been developed that could prevent work injuries and improve safety at work [1], but have mostly failed to reach relevant decision makers in practice [2, 3]. Along with these changes there has been an increasing awareness of the limitation of traditional approaches mainly relying on “passive diffusion“ of evidence-based knowledge and a call for new and more active approaches to bridge the gap between research and practice[4], which also applies to the prevention of workplace accidents[5].

Following this, the aim of this keynote is to unfold the perspectives, approaches and tools that are available to fill the gap between research and practice.

Method: The presentation is based on two recently finished reviews – one systematic review on what works in the prevention of accidents at work and a scoping review of the literature on perspectives, methods and tools for mobilization, translation and exchange of OSH knowledge between researchers and the practice field.

Results: ‘Research to Practice – Practice to Research’ (R2P) in prevention of work accidents is a generic term for the approaches and efforts in bringing knowledge to the right people, but also to bring the right knowledge from practice too research.

Three main perspectives can be identified within the R2P literature: (1) the linear perspective; (2) the cyclical/interactive perspective and (3) the systemic perspective.

(1) The linear perspective, is the most used approach in the OSH field. Researchers and research institutions develop communication strategies for dissemination and transfer (push) of knowledge to potential users. This perspective assumes that knowledge transfer mainly progresses unidirectional through stages from research to practice. Knowledge is seen as a product that can be stored, circulated and transferred to the target audience.

An often used approach is to implement various forms of communication strategies[6]. The advantage of this approach is that many users can be reached with relatively little cost, whereas the bottom part is that the impact is not great. This might be a useful approach when safety problems are simple and straightforward to define and solve. When safety issues are more complex the linear perspective are not adequate.

(2) The cyclical/interactive perspective, incorporates the principles for dissemination and transfer of knowledge as we have in the linear perspective. However, on top of that, there is a strong focus on the processes and interactions among people using the evidence based knowledge. In this perspective, successful use of evidence based knowledge depends on intensive and effective relationships and processes between research and practice. Knowledge is coming from multiple stakeholders in the practice or policy fields, and not only from the research field[7].

An important approach in this perspective is the sharing of knowledge and development of partnerships and networks[7]. This includes the establishment, or linking up to, networks among stakeholders and researchers with common interest[8], e.g., in solving a particular safety problem in the construction industry. Another important approach is engagement, capacity building and training of users in using and transferring knowledge to practice[5]. More recently, integrated knowledge transfer and exchange (KTE) has been advocated as an approach for actively engaging practitioners in research and sharing of useful evidence with decision makers and practitioners[5].This could also involve ‘knowledge brokers’ who can bridge between research and practice[9]. Knowledge brokers comprise various types of safety professionals, including labour inspectors, which mediate and translate between research and practice.

In a Nordic context, the Triple Helix approach has been advocated and used to close the gap between knowledge and action, and thus promote a closer engagement of research users in knowledge production from research questions to transfer of knowledge into the practice field[10].
These approaches ensure a stronger uptake of relevant OSH knowledge in the network, but they are also more demanding in terms of reaching a larger audience.

(3) The system perspective is based on systems thinking, where the system in question is best understood as a complex adaptive system, which means dynamic and constantly changing. As we know from systems theory, changes in one part of the system can have unexpected changes in other parts of the system.

A system perspective may be the right choice when all of the key stakeholders can be active collaborators from problem identification to solution, and stakeholders should be willing to invest considerable time and efforts in solving a particular safety problem[7]. In this perspective, it is acknowledged that research-based knowledge is only a smaller part of a much broader knowledge system – and at best, research-based knowledge contributes to develop and cultivate existing knowledge systems. Knowledge is created in context and seen as a process embedded in practice, i.e., tacit knowledge, and thus not easy to change. Important approaches here are various co-creation models and the Triple Helix approach, as mentioned above.

Conclusion: It is important that research evidence to a higher extend inform practice if we are to further improve safety prevention and reduce the burden of workplace injuries. However, to this end we need to enhance existing approaches to fill the gap between research and practice. We should consider what perspective and approaches there could be most useful for a particular type of research and context. We also need to think about the balance between reaching larger populations and to increase the level of impact. This requires a number of new approaches and tools to intensify and expand the collaboration between practice and research. The WOS conference is a good place to start –find your new partners – find your new approach!


1. Dyreborg, J., et al., Safety Interventions for the Prevention of Accidents in the Work Place. Title registration for a review protocol. The Campbell Collaboration, 2011.
2. Baker, R., Chang, C., Bunting, J., Betit, E., Triage for Action: Systematic assessment and dissemination of construction health and safety research. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 2015. 58: p. 838–848.
3. Schulte, P.A., et al., Translation research in occupational safety and health: A proposed framework. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 2017. 60(12): p. 1011-1022.
4. Greenhalgh, T., What Is This Knowledge That We Seek to "Exchange"? Milbank Quarterly, 2010. 88(4): p. 492-499.
5. Van Eerd, D., Saunders, R., Integrated knowledge transfer and exchange: An organizational approach for stakeholder engagement and communications. Scholarly and Research Communication, 2017. 8(1).
6. Lavis, J.N., Robertson, D., Woodside, J.M., McLeod, C.B., Abelson, J. , How can research organizations more effectively transfer research knowledge to decision makers? Milbank Quarterly, 2003. 81(2): p. 221-248.
7. Best, A. and J.E. Saul, Systems thinking: a different window on the world of implementation and global exchange of behavioral medicine evidence. Translational Behavioral Medicine, 2011. 1(2): p. 361-363.
8. Graham, I.D., Logan, J., Harrison, M.B., Straus, S., Tetroe, J., Caswell, W., Robinson, N., Lost in knowledge translation: Time for a map? The Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 2006. 26: p. 13-24.
9. Dobbins, M., et al., A description of a knowledge broker role implemented as part of a randomized controlled trial evaluating three knowledge translation strategies. Implementation Science, 2009. 4.
10. Svensson, L., P.-E. Ellström, and G. Brulin, Introduction–on interactive research. International Journal of Action Research, 2007. 3(3): p. 233-249.