Thursday, February 7, 2013

Government Mental Health Policy


Government Mental Health Policy 
Discussion
Over a period of time, external knowledge acquisition has proved to be a pillar of success to organizations in their various fields of operation. Knowledge transfer involves activities of exchanging of external knowledge between two entities where one receives and applies the knowledge given for personal gain (Kumar and Ganesh, 2009). Knowledge translation is meant to synthesize, disseminate, equip and transfer knowledge to the healthcare personnel and assist them in their daily execution of the health policies.
From the results obtained, it is evident that there is lack of knowledge transition activities in the mental healthcare sector. This means the policy makers are not involving the researchers in the acquisition of interactive data that could assist in proper service delivery to the mental patients.
The finding of this review scope on the use of knowledge translation in the government mental health policy, reveal that there is little literature about the use of knowledge translation policies in the government mental health sector and other health care areas of Canada and other parts of the world. This translates to the fact that there is little usage of knowledge among the health care and other sectors. Cummings and Teng, (2003), found out that knowledge transfer as other areas of success can be evaluated through the number of publications at a given period of time, Looking at the results reveal that there is little information on the subject matter of KT shown by the few publications that have the KT policy framework.
The basic understanding of the knowledge transferred by the user and its application to bring out the results may prove difficult to the end user to absorb and utilize the information. (Tsang, 2002).
The results reveal that there is a lot of information among the people that has not been utilized in the mental health sector. This means the service providers and the policy makers are working in isolation thus fail to disseminate the information to the end users. This has been shown by the few (one) publication within Canada. The KT key activities used by the healthcare department in policy makers do not include the knowledge translation guidelines and framework. 
According to Harman, C, Brelade, S. (2003), the various gaps in the study finding clearly separate the knowledge disseminator, the health care policy makers and the stakeholders, the care givers and the patients who experience the mental illness. The few published works in the area of mental heath reveal the fact that the recipient of the knowledge and information either does not absorb and or do not understand the usage of the information. The gaps in the study findings could be eye opener to the challenges faced during the implementation of the KT policies and activities. These challenges include lack of a shared common language among the policy makers and researchers who have the capacity to find the evidence based knowledge to be used in the effective treatment of patients. Trautman and Steve (2006)
There is a failure by the government to develop a cumulative evidence base for the knowledge transfer that can be shown with only one publication in Canada which involves the use of research and knowledge transfer framework. The government has not set aside funds for the scientific explorations in the area of knowledge transfer thus there is no link between the researcher and the end user. Davenport et al (2000) noted that in such research review, the government needs to create a sustainable programme in training initiatives of the researchers to enable introduction of knowledge based treatment to the patients.


Implications and recommendations
The study found out that there are an increasing number of patients with mental problems yet the government has no clear policies to offer treatment to the people by use of knowledge based research and transfer. Nonaka, I.; Takeuchi, H. (1995) argued that the  parallel working of the stake holders, policy makers, researchers, care givers and the patients with experience, means that patients receive low quality treatment. The government therefore needs to fast track its activities and set up a comprehensive initiative that will enable researchers to carry out there activities of knowledge search effectively. This can be done by setting aside funds to assist researchers during the research period. Similarly, the sensitivity and importance of this research calls for the government to offer good remuneration to the scientists to act as a motivation factor.
The government through the health officers and health policies should show an interest in the integration of the knowledge search and transfer activities in their programmes. This will give the researchers motivation to continue with the research since there efforts are being appreciated. There is need to carry out a research in all involved sections to ascertain the missing link in the use of knowledge transfer policy and framework. It is possible the policy makers are in need of the research findings but the scientists are not doing the research.

Conclusion
This study and review scope was meant to show that extend of use and application of knowledge transfer in the healthcare sector system. From the research and its findings, there is lack of a knowledge base and knowledge transfer framework policy in the health sectors of most countries. This has also revealed the various gaps in the application of knowledge policies in the most sectors of the health care.



















References
Argote, L. et al. (2000). "Knowledge Transfer in Organizations: Learning from the            Experience of Others", Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,    82(1) (May): 1–8.
Cummings, J and Teng, B. 2003. ‗Transferring R&D knowledge: the key factors   affecting knowledge transfer successes. Journal of Engineering and Technology    Management. 20:        39–68
Davenport, Thomas H.; and Prusak, Laurence (2000). Working Knowledge: How   Organizations Manage What They Know, Boston Massachusetts, Havard Business        School Press.
Davies. H.T.O., Nutley, S.M., & Smith, P.C. (Eds.). (2000). what works? Evidence           based policy and practice in public services. Bristol, UK: The Policy Press
Davis, P., & Howden-Chapman, P. (1996). Translating research findings into health          policy. Social Science & Medicine, 43 (5), 865-872
Harman, C.; Brelade, S. (2003). "Doing the Right Thing in a Knowledge Transfer".           Knowledge Management Review (Melcrum Publishing) 6 (1): 28–31.
Kumar, J. and Ganesh, L. 2009. ‗Research on knowledge transfer in organizations: a         morphology‘. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(4): 161-174.
Nonaka, I.; Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company. New York, NY:      Oxford University Press.
Trautman, Steve (2006). "Teach What You Know: A Practical Leader's Guide to   Knowledge Transfer", Addison-Wesley
Tsang, E. 2002. ‗Acquiring knowledge by foreign partners for international joint   ventures in a    transition economy: Learning-by-doing and learning myopia‘.  Strategic Management Journal, 23, 835-854.