1. hobbies and interests
2. games
3. gambling

From Knowledge to Action:
A Proposal for Building Knowledge Translation
and Exchange Capacity about Gambling including its
Potential for Harm
Prepared by:
Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre
150 Research Lane, Suite 104
Guelph, ON
Canada N1G 4T2
Submitted by:
Lynda Hessey
Chair, Board of Directors
Gary O’Connor
Chief Executive Officer
Date:
May 15, 2013
Table of Contents
1 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 3
2 Building a Case for Action: Introduction to Gambling Including its Potential for
Harm in Ontario ................................................................................................................. 8
3 Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre ...................................................................12
3.1 The Early Years of OPGRC: 2000-2011 .....................................................................12
3.2 OPGRC Strategic Directions: 2011-2014 ...................................................................13
3.2.1 Conceptual Framework of Harmful Gambling ........................................................15
4 Opportunity for Action: Evolving into a Knowledge Translation and Exchange
Centre ..................................................................................................................................16
4.1 Why Knowledge Translation and Exchange Are Important to Gambling
Including its Potential for Harm ..................................................................................16
4.2 Who Will Benefit from the Centre’s Knowledge Translation and Exchange
Strategy? ......................................................................................................................18
4.3 How does the Centre Define Knowledge Translation and Exchange? ...................19
4.4 Strategies for Successful Knowledge Translation and Exchange ..........................20
5 Vision, Mission and Goals .................................................................................................22
6 A Plan for Action: A Proposed Knowledge Translation and Exchange Program
Model ...................................................................................................................................23
6.1 The Knowledge Translation Program and Exchange Model: Strategies and
Activities ....................................................................................................................25
6.1.1 Knowledge Repository. ............................................................................................25
6.1.2 Knowledge Products. ...............................................................................................25
6.1.3 Evidence-informed Advice.......................................................................................25
6.1.4 Facilitate Learning. ...................................................................................................26
6.1.5 Knowledge Inquiry. ..................................................................................................27
6.1.6 Monitor, Evaluate, Adjust.........................................................................................27
6.2
Features of the Knowledge Translation and Exchange Program
Model…………............................................................................................................28
6.3 Benefits and Positive Impacts of the KTE Program ……………………………….......30
7 Challenges and Risks .......................................................................................................31
8 Communication and Marketing ........................................................................................32
9 The Action Plan: A 3 Year Transition Plan ......................................................................33
10 Financial Plan ...................................................................................................................33
11 Measuring Successful Action........................................................................................33
11.1 Evaluation plan ........................................................................................................34
12 Summary...........................................................................................................................36
13 Appendices.......................................................................................................................41
1 Executive Summary
Background
The rate of problem gambling in Ontario is likely to increase as a result of Ontario’s
lottery and gaming “modernization” plan which will increase access to land-based and
internet gambling opportunities. Problem gambling can have negative effects on
physical health and well-being, mental health and addiction, family relations, personal
finances and delinquency. These problems burden the health care system, tie up the
courts and ultimately prove costly to the Ontario government and taxpayers. Now, more
than ever, Ontario must respond to the growing need for effective prevention and
treatment practices to minimize the harms from gambling. What little evidence exists is
being under-utilized by those who can bring about change in the health system and the
gambling industry.
The new role for OPGRC
OPGRC has been recognized for its leadership as an objective, independent problem
gambling research centre in Canada and around the world. Our leadership has guided
major research initiatives and has supported evidence-informed decision making in
policy and practice. In doing so, OPGRC has formed highly effective provincial, interprovincial and international partnerships for collaborating and exchanging knowledge
across government, the gambling industry, prevention and treatment
providers/organizations, and academic researchers. After 12 years of operation,
OPGRC is in a strong position to transition to a comprehensive knowledge translation
and exchange (KTE) centre. After extensive discussion with the Ministry of Health and
Long-Term Care (MOHLTC), gambling industry leaders, researchers and other
stakeholders, a KTE strategy was designed to promote the use of evidence-based
knowledge in practice and policy.
Objectives
 To translate and exchange cutting edge knowledge by providing innovative
strategies for our partners and stakeholders;
 To scan and monitor the environment, thereby enabling the Centre and its partners
to anticipate, adapt, and respond to emerging gambling issues at an early stage; and
 To provide leadership in guiding research initiatives and to support evidence-based
decision making in gambling-related policy and practice.
Our vision is to eliminate harm from gambling.
Our mission is to create and translate knowledge
to support evidence-based decision making about
gambling including its potential for harm.
Page 3
Methods and Design of Knowledge Translation and Exchange Strategies
The Centre’s KTE program will be comprised of six complementary activities.
1. Knowledge Repository. The Centre will scan, gather, maintain, and distribute
gambling-related materials and information from a variety of sources and make them
accessible in various forms. Specifically, the Centre will:
• Create an online storehouse and provide access to knowledge products and
databases
• Form partnerships with adjunct research scientists and prevention/treatment
experts
2. Knowledge Products. The Centre will create a wide range of tailored knowledge
products that reflect the state of knowledge and the needs of the knowledge users.
Specifically, the Centre will create:
• Tailored knowledge products for target audiences
• A system in which stakeholders can seek out or receive knowledge products
• Synopses of scientific research and grey literature related to gambling
• Comprehensive review/conceptual documents including the Conceptual
Framework of Harmful Gambling and Problem Gambling Research Framework
3. Evidence-Informed Advice. The Centre will provide decision makers with current,
reliable knowledge and establish dialogue between stakeholders. Specifically, the
Centre will:
• Prepare policy briefs and other rapid response products at the request of
stakeholders
• Create literature reviews at the request of stakeholders or for broad
dissemination
• Establish and facilitate decision making panels/forums and briefings to exchange
information about knowledge gaps to inform research agendas
• Facilitate the establishment of standards/best practices for gambling practice and
policies and share this information with decision makers
4. Facilitate Learning. The Centre will create learning and problem solving
opportunities for its stakeholders. Specifically, the Centre will:
• Host and participate in education workshops, conferences and webinars
• Provide learning opportunities for cooperative education and graduate students
• Host and participate in the international Think Tank on Gambling Research,
Policy and Practice
• Establish a platform for stakeholders to identify and share their learning needs
5. Knowledge Inquiry. The Centre will build on its expertise in coordinating strategic
problem gambling research to produce research evidence that can be applied to reduce
the harm from gambling and improve outcomes for gamblers and their families.
Specifically, the Centre will:
• Perform secondary data analysis of data contained in OPGRC’s databases to
address gaps in knowledge
Page 4
•
•
Offer knowledge translation and exchange awards to address KTE research
gaps or facilitate knowledge uptake
Address knowledge questions posed by stakeholders
6. Monitor, Evaluate, Adjust. The Centre will monitor and evaluate whether research
was used and how it was used, assess stakeholders’ changing KTE needs, adjust the
products/services provided as needed, and develop innovative strategies to facilitate
knowledge use. Specifically, the Centre will:
• Assess stakeholders’ awareness of, satisfaction with, and use of KTE
products/services
• Assess barriers and facilitators of knowledge use
• Develop program assessment and evaluation tools
• Assess the impact of its KTE products/services
• Adjust services and products to meet needs of knowledge users and the
changing environment
• Monitor the changing gambling environment
Capacity Building
OPGRC’s knowledge translation and exchange strategy will build capacity by:
 increasing gambling knowledge, awareness, and responsiveness among health
care providers, policy makers, and communities by providing current and relevant
information about research, prevention/treatment programs, and best practices;
 appointing adjunct research scientists and partnering with treatment providers
and other experts;
 providing professional development for staff and creating new KTE-focused staff
positions;
 creating student placements to develop interest and skills in KTE and problem
gambling;
 working with allied organizations including the Responsible Gambling Council
(RGC) and the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) on projects and
initiatives to maximize prevention, treatment and KTE efforts in Ontario.
Knowledge users who might benefit from having access to comprehensible,
applicable and time-saving products and services include:
 Ontario Ministries such as the MOHLTC, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of the
Attorney General, Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, and the Ministry of
Education;
 Ontario government agencies such as Alcohol and Gaming Commission of
Ontario (AGCO) and crown corporations such as Ontario Lottery and Gaming
Corporation (OLG);
 Organizations specifically concerned with problem gambling including RGC and
CAMH;
 Ontario public health departments, community mental health and addiction
agencies and community health centres;
 First responders in the community such as treatment centre providers, general
practitioners, and clergy;
Page 5
 Organizations that provide financial/debt consultation; and
 Researchers and students.
Benefits, Impacts and Practical Importance
Knowledge translation and exchange helps decision makers and those who support
them to do their job better or more efficiently – namely to find and use research
evidence to support policy making in the health system and gambling industry. A KTE
strategy will increase the return to society from investments in research by promoting
the use of valuable knowledge in practice and policy. Ultimately, the Centre’s KTE
strategy will eliminate harm from gambling and save the Ontario government and
taxpayers money.
OPGRC’s knowledge translation and exchange strategy will facilitate:
 evaluating and comparing prevention and treatment programs to improve them;
 identifying strategies to encourage provision and use of effective health and
community services for gamblers;
 identifying strategies to promote the integration of evidence into policy and
program decisions; and
 identifying problems to be considered for applied innovative solutions
OPGRC’s KTE strategy will have short- and long-term beneficial impacts.
The strategy will:
 increase awareness of the harmful effects of gambling; the complexities related
to problem gambling; the gaps in gambling research that can be used to drive
MOHLTC research agendas (e.g., applied health research questions (AHRQs),
Ontario Problem Gambling Strategy); and the resources available for prevention
and treatment of gambling problems;
 facilitate the development of strong partnerships with stakeholders;
 increase awareness of harmful gambling as a health and social-economic
concern in Ontario;
 increase the use of evidence in decision making including prevention/treatment
programs and policy; and
 increase support for gambling related research to better inform health care
practices, best practices for gambling operators, and policy.
Putting it all together
The logic model below provides a summary of the Centre’s goals, products/services,
resource requirements, and anticipated outcomes by operating as a knowledge
translation and exchange centre.
Page 6
Page 7
OPGRC KTE Detailed Proposal
2 Building a Case for Action: Introduction to Gambling Including its
Potential for Harm in Ontario
Lottery and gaming have been a part of Ontario’s entertainment and tourism industries
for decades and are now considered an acceptable leisure option. In 2011, it was
estimated that a total of 8 million Ontario adults (80%) played the lottery at least once,
and 2.7 million (27%) visited gaming sites. The Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation
(OLG) is the largest gaming organization (and jurisdiction) in North America, with 33
gaming sites and 10,000 lottery points of sale. Lottery and gaming are not only here to
stay, but they continue to expand in the number and types of gambling opportunities.
OLG is currently responsible for 23,000 slot machines and more than 500 games tables
in Ontario, as well as 27 gaming facilities and more than 10,000 lottery terminals. The
Government of Ontario recognizes, however, that the long-term sustainability of the
gambling industry has been threatened by advances in technology, changes to
shopping patterns, aging demographics, and declining visits from tourists. Based on the
2010 OLG Strategic Business Review (2) the Government of Ontario gave OLG
direction to “modernize” gambling in Ontario by:
1. expanding charitable gaming;
2. launching internet gaming by developing a complete internet gaming platform,
including peer-to-peer games;
3. increasing the number of venues for selling lottery tickets; and
4. developing a process for private sector vendors to deliver internet gaming.
OLG intends to launch provincially controlled internet gambling in 2013 and increase
operation to 29 gaming facilities during the next decade. This modernization initiative is
intended to “be responsive to customers” and “broaden the player base by becoming
more appealing, not increasing the amount that current customers gamble” (2).
However, the plan is concerning since internet gambling will likely appeal to youth while
other vulnerable populations will be exposed to land-based gaming facilities in targeted
large urban centres and tourist areas.
The Ontario modernization plan will involve substantial benefits. Legalized gambling
yields significant tax revenue for governments; OLG reports that it contributes $1.7 to $2
billion in net profit to the provincial government each year. Undoubtedly, gambling
results in increased economic activity and significantly greater contributions to the
Provincial treasury which, in turn, have been used to support health care, education,
and infrastructure development.
While most adults gamble responsibly, in 2007-2008, the
estimated rate of problem gambling in Ontario was 0.8%; this
rate increased to 1.2% by 2011 (1), an increase of 50%, and this
number is likely to rise still further as a result of increased
access to land-based and internet gaming opportunities (2).
Page 8
Nonetheless, recent rapid and prolific expansion of new forms of legalized gambling has
been associated with considerable harmful effects for individuals, their families, the local
economy and society at large (3, 4). Studies have demonstrated a link between the
availability of casinos and increases in problem gambling. A study in Niagara Falls
found that rates of pathological gambling increased from 2.5% to 4.4% of the population
in the one-year period after the first casino opened (5). Other communities in Ontario
have reported similar increases following casinos openings, including Sarnia, Sault Ste.
Marie, Brantford, and Thunder Bay (6). The increased accessibility, convenience and
anonymity that will come with internet gambling is projected to further increase gambling
problems during the next wave of gambling expansion in Ontario (7).
In its 2012 report, Toronto Public Health commented on the harmful implications of
gambling expansion (6). As summarized in this report, Table 1 identifies negative
impacts that gambling can have on health, mental health, substance use and
dependence, familial relations, society and the local economy. While the cost of
problem gambling is difficult to quantify, these problems burden the health care system,
tie up the courts and, ultimately, prove costly to taxpayers since the community is called
upon to cover the costs associated with problem gambling, including additional costs of
health care, problem gambling treatment, bankruptcy losses, absenteeism, civil and
criminal court proceedings, policing, incarceration and security.
A decade ago, these incremental costs were on average $56,000 per problem gambler
(8). It is not surprising that, problem gambling has been framed as a major health
concern by the Toronto Board of Health and by other public health scholars (9). It is also
not surprising that it has become increasingly important to demonstrate the benefits of
investment of taxpayer dollars in health research by moving research into policy,
programs and practice.1 Now, more than ever, Ontario must respond to the growing
need for effective prevention and treatment practices for gamblers and their families:
this can only be achieved by using evidence to inform policy and practice.
1 1
http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/39033.html, retrieved December 6, 2012.
Page 9
Table 1. Health, social and economic impacts associated with problem gambling.
Impact
References
General Health
Lower self-reported general health and well-being
(10-13)
Colds and influenza
(14)
Headaches, including migraines
(12, 15)
Fatigue and sleep problems
(14, 16, 17)
Chronic health problems (e.g., bronchitis, fibromyalgia)
(12-15)
Miscellaneous health symptoms which might be stressrelated (e.g., cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, heart burn,
obesity, backache)
(18, 19)
Mental Health
Stress
(11, 20, 21)
Depression
(11, 15, 21-23)
Anxiety and mood disorders
(11, 22, 23)
Suicide
(11, 24-26)
Co-dependencies
Alcohol, tobacco and drug use
(15, 21, 27, 28)
Substance abuse/addiction
(15, 21)
Familial impacts
Divorce/separation and alienation
(10, 15, 29, 30)
Partner violence
(31, 32)
Child abuse and neglect
(30)
Social and economic impacts
Delinquency and crime
(33-35)
Fatigue and alcohol-related traffic fatalities
(36, 37)
Use of chronic and costly forms of medical care
(18, 38, 39)
Poor job performance, absenteeism, job loss
(19, 29, 40)
Financial problems including debt and bankruptcy
(10, 15, 41)
Deterioration of previously established local or regional
businesses
(42)
Adapted from the Toronto Public Health Technical Report (2012) (6).
Page 10
It has been difficult to respond to harmful gambling in a manner that makes effective
use of the state of knowledge. In particular, the uptake of research-based knowledge by
health, government and gambling industry decision makers is both unpredictable and
slow, thereby diminishing the return to society from investments in research. The federal
and provincial governments’ increased focus on research governance and
accountability has made it increasingly important to “demonstrate the benefits of
investment of taxpayer dollars in health research by moving research into policy,
programs and practice”.2 As outlined in Ontario’s Action Plan for Health, “It’s about
getting the greatest value for patients from the system, allowing evidence to inform how
scarce health care dollars are best invested and ensuring people receive the care they
need”.3 Currently, there is a dearth of information on which problem gambling
prevention and treatment programs are actually effective and under what
circumstances. Moreover, what little evidence exists is being under-utilized by those
who can bring about change (43).
Accordingly, the Ontario Government support of problem gambling research is placing
greater emphasis on “knowledge translation and exchange” (KTE). In particular, the
Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (MOHLTC) has invited the Ontario Problem
Gambling Research Centre (OPGRC) to realign its strategic objectives to focus on
knowledge translation and exchange related to problem gambling. This invitation has
led OPGRC to develop a KTE strategy designed to promote the use of evidence-based
knowledge in policy and practice. Knowledge translation and exchange “helps policy
makers and those who support them to do their job better or more efficiently – namely to
find and use research evidence to support health and gambling industry policy making”
(44). A KTE strategy will increase the benefits from investments in gambling research
and, more importantly, enhance prevention strategies, treatment approaches, clientcare, and reduce the harm from gambling.
“Even the greatest discovery in the world will go unheeded if
it is unheard. For research [and more generally, knowledge] to
matter, it must be heard and understood by people in a
position to bring about change” (45).
After 12 years of operation, OPGRC is in a strong position to transition from its role as a
research broker to that of a knowledge broker, evolving into a comprehensive
knowledge translation and exchange organization. OPGRC has a deep understanding
of the potential harms from gambling, risk factors and consequences of problem
gambling, and the effective policy and programmatic responses to problem gambling.
OPGRC has developed strong partnerships with researchers, treatment providers and
gambling operators, and the Centre is dedicated to putting knowledge into the hands of
those who should and can make use of it.
2
3
http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/39033.html, retrieved December 6, 2012.
http://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/ms/ecfa/healthy_change/docs/rep_healthychange.pdf, retrieved April 12, 2013.
Page 11
3 Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre
3.1
The Early Years of OPGRC: 2000-2011
In 1996, during a decade of rapid gambling expansion, the Government of Ontario
approved the development of a comprehensive Problem Gambling Strategy for the
prevention, treatment and research of problem gambling in Ontario. The Ministry of
Health and Long-Term Care (MOHLTC) was given responsibility for developing and
managing the Strategy. In 2000, OPGRC was established as an independent non-profit
organization. As part of the Problem Gambling Strategy, OPGRC was funded by a
portion of the 2% gross revenue from slot machines at racetracks and OLG casinos.
OPGRC was established with a mandate to put distance between the Ontario
government and problem gambling research to ensure research was conducted free
from bias of government, gambling operators, and other vested interests. The Centre
coordinated competitive problem gambling research to examine prevalence and risk
factors, prevention and treatment program evaluation, as well as the individual, familial,
societal and economic effects of gambling. This research addressed important
questions to better serve the population of problem gamblers, their families, and society
in Ontario and worldwide. Since its inception, OPGRC’s mandate developed to include
support for professional capacity development among Ontario researchers and
students, and dissemination of research findings derived from OPGRC-funded and
independent research.
While pursuing this mandate over a period of 12 years, OPGRC invested more than $47
million of government funding into problem gambling research, research capacity
building and knowledge dissemination, resulting in:
 more than 360 research awards addressing the scope of problem gambling in
Ontario, tools to measure problem gambling, support for prevention and
treatment providers, and guidance related to the development of problem
gambling policies by Ontario ministries (e.g., MOHLTC, Finance, and Attorney
General), as well as the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario (AGCO),
and Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation (OLG);
 increased capacity among Ontario problem gambling researchers by the
provision of studentships, research teams, research school, and researcher
workshops; and
 translation and dissemination of research results in accessible forms (e.g.,
research summaries and briefs) for use by decision makers (e.g., government
Ministries, AGCO, OLG, gaming operators) and practitioners in treatment and
prevention settings.
OPGRC has been recognized for its leadership in problem gambling in Canada and
around the world. Our leadership has guided major research initiatives and has
supported evidence-informed decision making in policy and practice. In this, OPGRC
has provided what has been referred to as thought leadership; that is, serving as “an
authority on relevant topics by delivering the answers to the biggest questions on the
minds of your target audiences; intriguing, challenging, and inspiring; starting
Page 12
relationships where none exist, and enhancing existing relationships”.4 In doing so,
OPGRC has formed highly effective inter-provincial and international partnerships for
collaboration, information dialogue exchange among researchers, government,
gambling operators, treatment providers and prevention organizations.
OPGRC investments in research are the means to a more
important end: reducing potential harm from gambling and
improving the lives of people with gambling problems. To
ensure research findings are used to drive programs and
policies in the health system and gambling industry, we must
share findings and engage the people who will use the
knowledge from research.5
3.2
OPGRC Strategic Directions: 2011-2014
Since its inception in 2000, OPGRC has been committed to building new knowledge,
translating and exchanging knowledge for practical and beneficial application. We
understand that research must be strategic, forward-looking, long-term, and “translated”
in a way that is likely to inform improvements in policy and practice. To reinforce its
commitment to this mission, in 2011, the OPGRC developed a Strategic Framework
looking to the future, namely, 2011-2014.
The journey to develop its three-year Strategic Framework began with a clear
understanding of its context.
OPGRC:
 set out to understand the gambling environment, the gambling industry, and
political and regulatory trends;
 analysed the mandates, goals, key initiatives and needs of gambling and problem
gambling stakeholders and the ways in which these relate to OPGRC mandate
and mission;
 reviewed the impact of 10 years of OPGRC-funded research on the field of
problem gambling;
 examined evolving expectations regarding the benefits of publicly funded
research.
OPGRC then directly engaged its stakeholders to identify their expectations and
perceptions of OPGRC, and their perceived knowledge needs. OPGRC met with more
than 16 organizations and 65 individuals representing provincial, Canadian and
international policy makers, treatment providers, educators, researchers, gambling
operators and regulators.
4
http://www.forbes.com/sites/sap/2013/01/30/what-is-thought-leadership-5-steps-to-get-it-right/, retrieved March 8,
2013.
5
Adapted from the Ontario HIV Treatment Network (OHTN) Strategic Plan to 2010
Page 13
As a result of this stakeholder engagement:
 OPGRC learned that it was delivering strong results in some areas and not
meeting key needs of some of our stakeholders in other areas. Of special
importance was OPGRC’s meeting stakeholders’ knowledge translation needs;
that is providing easily accessible and relevant knowledge translated from
gambling research studies.
 OPGRC’s stakeholders identified the need for a strategic, focused, research
agenda that would build on existing knowledge, address emerging needs and
invest in research that would have optimal impact on responding to the
challenges of problem gambling.
OPGRC Strategic Themes: 2011-2014
Based on these stakeholder discussions, OPGRC embraced four
strategic themes designed to:
1.
2.
3.
4.
ensure relevance with respect to stakeholders’ needs;
engage and collaborate with stakeholders;
invest in research strategically; and
develop its leadership role with respect to promoting
problem gambling research
A review of the Centre’s strategic directions provided a wide array of evidence of its
impact on the problem gambling field, including:
 OPGRC continued to foster and support relevant research designed to
understand the interactions between gamblers and the changing gambling
environment. For example, the Centre sponsored research to investigate
prevalence rates before and after the introduction of internet gambling and new
Ontario casinos; the influence of social media and mobile technology on
gambling; and the effectiveness of online gambling assessment and treatment
tools.
 OPGRC invested in problem gambling prevention and harm minimization through
grants to develop educational online learning modules, educational animations
for slot machines/video lottery terminals, and problem gambling assessment and
screening tools.
 OPGRC continued to inform stakeholders of relevant research findings by
providing online access to synopses of published gambling research;
disseminating research summaries of OPGRC-funded projects to government
and the gambling industry; synthesizing new evidence into reviews and fact
sheets; and creating policy briefs to inform deliberations and providing
consultation for government and gambling operators.
 OPGRC engaged Ontario and international researchers by co-hosting an internet
gambling workshop and hosting a student gambling workshop.
 OPGRC engaged local and international partners through participation in an
exclusive international Think Tank on Gambling Research, Policy and Practice,
Page 14
hosted educational workshops, and facilitated the collaborative development of
and presentations on the Conceptual Framework of Harmful Gambling.
3.2.1 Conceptual Framework of Harmful Gambling
During the strategic planning phase, OPGRC undertook a major initiative to develop a
Conceptual Framework of Harmful Gambling (46). A team of international and
interdisciplinary experts were engaged to create a comprehensive framework for
understanding factors that influence gambling and the harmful effects gambling can
have on individuals, their families, and the community (see Appendix 1).
Harmful gambling is considered any type of gambling that leads to recurring negative
consequences for the individual, their family, social network, and the community.
Harmful gambling encompasses all degrees of severity and frequency.
The Framework is intended to create a common language among a variety of
stakeholders – including researchers, treatment providers, operators, policy makers –
with which to exchange knowledge about the possible causes and consequences of
harmful gambling and resources to minimize gambling harm.
The Framework is a “living document” that will be updated annually as new knowledge
becomes available. It is designed to:
1. reflect the state of knowledge as it relates to factors influencing harmful
gambling and the inter-relationships among these factors;
2. assist policy makers, regulators, service providers, and the public in better
understanding the complex dynamics involved in harmful gambling; and
3. act as a strategic map to identify gaps in gambling-related knowledge and guide
the development of strategic research programs.
Publication and dissemination of the Framework at international conferences and on the
Centre’s website (http://opgrc.org/conceptualframework/) demonstrate OPGRC’s stature
as a thought leader on issues related to problem gambling. It demonstrates how strong
OPGRC’s partnerships are throughout Ontario, across Canada, and internationally.
Finally, the Framework demonstrates the OPGRC’s success in identifying, synthesizing
and communicating the findings of more than a decade of international problem
gambling research to help our stakeholders make better informed decisions in health
care, policy and governance, and strategic research agendas, including the Ontario
Problem Gambling Strategy.
The Conceptual Framework of Harmful Gambling provides a foundation for realigning
OPGRC’s objective to evolve as a leader in knowledge translation related to gambling.
Page 15
4 Opportunity for Action: Evolving into a Knowledge Translation and
Exchange Centre
In 2012, the Ontario Government launched an Action Plan to transform the health care
system to ensure families get the best health care where and when they need it, while
ensuring all Ontarians get better value for their health dollars. As part of the Action Plan,
the Ontario government had to make decisions regarding funding priorities and ensure
funding shifted to areas where we get the best value.
“It’s about getting the greatest value for patients from the
system, allowing evidence to inform how scarce health care
dollars are best invested and ensuring people receive the care
they need….Evidence will drive our decisions and it will drive
our funding.”6
Also in 2012, the Ontario Government instituted changes in the way in which it supports
problem gambling research in the province. The MOHLTC has invited OPGRC to
realign its strategic objectives to focus on knowledge translation and exchange related
to problem gambling. A KTE strategy will increase the return to society from
investments in research by promoting the use of valuable knowledge in health practice
and policy. OPGRC embraces the opportunity to evolve into a knowledge translation
and exchange Centre. This opportunity for action will build upon the successes
achieved when we implemented the Strategic Direction for 2011-14 (see Section 3.2,
above), and will allow the Centre to better serve the population of gamblers, problem
gamblers, and their families in Ontario.
The Centre’s role will go beyond supporting research; we will ensure that information
developed through research activities is used to improve care and treatment for people
with gambling problems. As part of its commitment to shape both practice and policy,
the Centre will actively support knowledge translation and exchange strategies
designed to ensure that knowledge is shared and used to improve prevention, treatment
and care services, and to shape policy.
4.1
Why Knowledge Translation and Exchange are Important to Gambling
including its Potential for Harm
It is now widely recognized that a significant gap exists between the creation of
knowledge and the use of knowledge in health-related policy and practice, including
gambling (47, 48). Failure to use knowledge to inform decision making has been
documented across all decision making groups, including policy makers, health care
providers, gambling operators, community agencies, and clients who use treatment
services. This failure has recently been characterized as a knowledge-to-action gap
(46).
6
http://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/ms/ecfa/healthy_change/docs/rep_healthychange.pdf, retrieved April 12, 2013.
Page 16
This gap between knowledge creation and its use has been attributed to the fact that
researchers, policy makers, and treatment providers inhabit “different worlds” (49, 50).
This concept, known as the “two-communities” theory (51), states that receiving
knowledge does not necessarily lead to acting on it, especially if there is no common
focus, language, or research agenda among parties (52, 53). The world in which the
knowledge is developed (e.g., by researchers) must be synchronized with the needs
and practices of the world occupied by decision makers.
Gambling in Ontario provides an excellent example of the two-communities
phenomenon. On the one hand, governments stand to profit economically from
gambling expansion, and are likely to make decisions based on limited research, other
than evidence related to economic and political benefits. On the other hand, gambling
researchers stand to “profit” from securing funding and publishing in academic journals,
even though this dissemination medium has limited effectiveness in contributing to
evidence-based policy and health program decision-making.
The growing concern about the research-to-practice knowledge gap, coupled with the
recent emphasis on evidence-based, cost-effective and accountable health care, has
stimulated interest in knowledge translation and exchange initiatives as a way to
minimize the knowledge-to-action gap (47). The purpose of knowledge translation and
exchange is for “knowledge to be applied or used to improve the health outcomes of
individuals or groups or improvements in the function of services associated with health
and illness” (54).
The gap between what is known and what is done contributes to
poor health outcomes and, ultimately, results in wasted time and
money.
Any discovery will go unheeded if it is unheard. For research and, more generally
knowledge, to have influence, it must be heard and understood by those in positions to
bring about change (45). Thus efforts must be made to close knowledge-to-action gaps
related to harmful gambling through the development of effective knowledge translation
and exchange initiatives. Optimally, development of such strategies will minimize the
harmful effects of gambling, thereby improving the health of the general population,
gamblers and particularly the health of problem gamblers (43).
A knowledge translation and exchange strategy will facilitate7:
 developing evidence-based prevention and treatment programs appropriate for
the population and setting;
 comparing multiple problem gambling prevention and treatment programs;
 identifying strategies to encourage provision and use of effective services for
problem gamblers;
 identifying strategies to promote the integration of evidence into policy and
program decisions;
7
http://www.fic.nih.gov/News/Events/implementation-science/Pages/faqs.aspx, retrieved April 16, 2013.
Page 17
 bringing identified problems forward to the political arena and helping thinking
about problems and solutions related to gambling differently; and
 developing innovative approaches to improve health care delivery for problem
gamblers.
To move forward as a leader in understanding and responding to gambling and its
potential for harm, OPGRC strongly supports restructuring the organization (OPGRC)
as a comprehensive knowledge translation and exchange centre.
4.2
Who Will Benefit from the Centre’s Knowledge Translation and Exchange
Strategy?
Reorienting OPGRC’s strategic objectives to focus on knowledge translation and
exchange related to problem gambling represents a shift in the organization’s roles and
relationships with stakeholders. In its new role, the Centre will serve the many target
audiences with whom we already have strong relationships; other relationships will be
built and strengthened as we transition to a KTE organization.
Target Audiences
A variety of stakeholders are key players in decision making processes in prevention/
treatment services for problem gambling, mental health policy, gambling policy, and
research. Knowledge users who might benefit from having access to comprehensible,
applicable and time-saving products and services might include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
A variety of Ontario Ministries play a major role in policy making and funding
gambling–related research, including the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care
(MOHLTC), Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of the Attorney General, the Ministry
of Tourism, Culture and Sport; and the Ministry of Education
Ontario government agencies such as the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of
Ontario (AGCO) and crown corporations such as the Ontario Lottery and Gaming
Corporation (OLG)
Organizations concerned with problem gambling including the Responsible
Gambling Council (RGC) and the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health
(CAMH)
First responders in the community such as treatment centre providers, general
practitioners and clergy
The scientific community, including research institutes (including CAMH),
researchers and students
Community organizations including financial/debt consultants
Human Resources centres who handle absenteeism, etc.
Page 18
4.3
How does the Centre Define Knowledge Translation and Exchange?
The Centre will adopt the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) model of
knowledge translation (KT), which currently represents the “gold standard” of knowledge
translation thinking and practice in Canada and elsewhere (e.g., World Health
Organization, National Center for the Dissemination of Disability Research) (47, 55).
CIHR acknowledges that:
1. “The creation of new knowledge often does not on its own lead to widespread
implementation or impacts on health.”
2. “With the increased focus on research governance and accountability from the
federal and provincial governments, as well as from the public, it becomes
increasingly important to demonstrate the benefits of investment of taxpayer
dollars in health research by moving research into policy, programs and
practice.”8
CIHR provides the following definition of knowledge translation:
“Knowledge Translation is a dynamic and iterative process….
[KT] is the exchange, synthesis and ethically-sound application
of knowledge – within a complex system of interactions among
researchers and users – to accelerate the capture of the
benefits of research for Canadians through improved health,
more effective services and products, and a strengthened
health care system.”9
Inherent in the definition is the notion of exchange:
"Knowledge exchange involves collaborative problem-solving
between researchers and decision makers that happens through
linkage and exchange. Effective knowledge exchange involves
interaction between knowledge users and researchers and
results in mutual learning through the process of planning,
producing, disseminating, and applying existing or new research
in decision-making."10
CIHR has adopted Graham’s knowledge-to-action process as a model for promoting the
application of research and as a conceptual framework for the KT processes (47) (see
Figure 1). This framework helps identify and understand the complexities of knowledge
translation, that is, the dynamic relationships between knowledge “creation” and
“action”. Graham’s model includes multiple phases between the creation of new
8
http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/39033.html, retrieved December 6, 2012.
Canadian Institutes of Health Research http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/29418.html; http://www.cihrirsc.gc.ca/e/26574.html#defining, retrieved December 6, 2012.
10
Canadian Institutes of Health Research http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/39033.html#Exchange, retrieved May 7, 2013.
9
Page 19
knowledge, knowledge synthesis, the tailored translation of research into accessible
forms, its real-world utilization and, finally, the evaluation of knowledge use. Inherent in
the model is a non-linear and active two-way exchange of information between those
who create new knowledge and the various stakeholders who might use it.
The Centre recognizes that knowledge can be viewed as either explicit or tacit. Explicit
knowledge is information that can be readily transmitted to others (e.g., research and
data). Tacit knowledge is generated through experience and insight, for example, frontline treatment providers’ experiences with clients; this knowledge must first be
systematically captured through some level of personal contact; before it can become
explicit and shared.
4.4 Strategies for Successful Knowledge Translation and Exchange
Push, pull and exchange models are the most used knowledge translation dialogues
(56). In the push model, producers of knowledge plan and implement approaches to
push or disseminate knowledge while decision makers are the receivers of information
on a particular topic. Knowledge is made more accessible through the use of products
(e.g., summaries, briefs, workshops). In contrast, in the pull model, decision makers
seek out or ask for the information they think they need. User pull often involves
providing “one-stop shopping” for summaries, reviews, rapid response products and
continuing education programs. Finally, the exchange model is an interactive process
involving mutually beneficial partnerships among decision makers, prevention and
treatment service providers and researchers. Partners might work in networks or
communities on priority-setting exercises, collaborative projects, and even work
together to create useful databases (49, 56).
To minimize the potential harm from gambling, the Centre will give careful consideration
to (i) involving a number of forms of knowledge, which can be either tacit or explicit; (ii)
the most appropriate fit of push, pull and/or exchange methods for that knowledge; (iii)
the message that should be disseminated or exchanged; and (iv) the target audiences
or stakeholders who will benefit most from the knowledge translation and exchange
strategy. This process requires ongoing assessment of stakeholder needs, involvement
of stakeholders in the development of products and services, and establishing a system
in which knowledge can be received, actively sought out, or exchanged.
Page 20
Figure 1. The knowledge-to-action process.
(Adapted from Graham et al., 2006)
Page 21
OPGRC KTE Detailed Proposal
5 Vision, Mission and Goals
The Centre will have the following Vision and Mission statements:
Vision Statement
To eliminate harm from gambling.
Mission Statement
To create and translate knowledge to support evidence-based
decision making about gambling including its potential for harm.
As a knowledge translation and exchange centre, the Centre’s goals will be:
1. To translate and exchange cutting edge knowledge by providing innovative
strategies for our partners and stakeholders;
2. To scan and monitor the environment, thereby enabling the Centre and its
partners to anticipate, adapt, and respond to emerging gambling issues at an
early stage; and
3. To provide leadership in guiding research initiatives and to support evidencebased decision making in gambling-related policy and practice.
Page 22
OPGRC KTE Detailed Proposal
6 A Plan for Action: A Proposed Knowledge Translation and
Exchange Program Model
The current opportunity for action to bridge the harmful gambling knowledge-to-action
gap calls for restructuring OPGRC’s operations and activities. To this end, OPGRC
consulted KTE experts, gambling industry leaders, and researchers (see Appendix 2) in
developing a comprehensive structured KTE program comprised of related,
complementary activities. Through these consultations, OPGRC has addressed the key
elements required when planning a structured KTE program, namely identifying multiple
target audiences, how knowledge will be “packaged” for effective use, how activities will
be implemented and evaluated, and the anticipated beneficial outcomes of the KTE
program (57, 58). The Centre’s KTE program will grow and evolve with the development
of the knowledge translation field, techniques and tools.
As illustrated in Figure 2 and described below, the Centre will operate with six KTE
initiatives that may occur either sequentially or simultaneously as a result of work
undertaken by a variety of staff and stakeholders (47). The activities are intended to
help treatment providers, researchers, and gambling industry and government policy
makers do their jobs more efficiently – namely, to find and use research evidence to
support their practices and decisions.
1. Knowledge Repository
2. Knowledge Products
3. Evidence-informed Advice
4. Facilitated Learning
5. Knowledge Inquiry
6. Monitor, Evaluate, Adjust
Page 23
OPGRC KTE Detailed Proposal
Figure 2. The Knowledge Translation and Exchange Program Model
Page 24
6.1
The Knowledge Translation and Exchange Program Model: Strategies and
Activities
Below we provide a description of each initiative of the Centre’s Knowledge Translation
and Exchange Program Model together with examples of activities for each initiative.
Appendix 3 provides a complete description of the example activities, and Table 2
provides a timeline for implementing the activities in fiscal years 2013-2016.
6.1.5 Knowledge Repository
Stakeholders are often unaware of the kinds of evidence that exist and how to access
them. Moreover, it is difficult to remain current with the volume of gambling-related
research evidence and “grey” literature. By gathering, storing, analyzing and
understanding the range of problem gambling research literature, the Centre will be
positioned to identify gaps and needs in gambling-related knowledge, and share this
knowledge with all health care providers, policy makers and researchers. This repository
will be a combination of Centre-owned and non-owned data, materials and information
that will provide a vehicle for placing evidence into the hands of those who should and
can make use of it.
The Centre will gather and store gambling-related knowledge; it
will scan, gather, analyze, and distribute materials and
information from a variety of sources and make them accessible
in various forms.
Specifically, the Centre will:
• Create an online storehouse and provide access to knowledge products and
databases
• Form partnerships with adjunct research scientists and partnerships with
treatment provider experts
• Invite stakeholders to contribute to the repository and establish a system to allow
them to access it
6.1.6 Knowledge Products
Evidence often has different meanings and uses for researchers, gambling operators,
client care providers and policymakers. To be useful, the Centre will interpret and
synthesize gambling-related knowledge to meet the specific needs of these and other
users (45).
The Centre will create a wide range of tailored, thorough
knowledge products that reflect the state of knowledge and the
needs of the knowledge users.
Specifically, the Centre will:
• Develop synopses of scientific research and grey literature
• Develop and provide comprehensive review/conceptual documents, including the
Conceptual Framework of Harmful Gambling and Problem Gambling Research
Framework
Page 25
•
•
Create tailored knowledge products and tools for target audiences through
forums and needs assessment
Create a system in which stakeholders can seek products from us or products
can be received
6.13 Evidence-informed Advice
Gambling-related decision-making in health care and policy is becoming increasingly
complex, involving input of knowledge from multiple sources including researchers,
treatment providers, front-line community agency staff, gambling operators and staff,
clients and the public. These stakeholders face many barriers to using knowledge
including time constraints; inability to access knowledge from multiple inputs; inability to
understand the language of the research and/or critically appraise the research and
recommended options; and agreement regarding what constitutes evidence. These
stakeholders require access to reliable, timely, and comprehensive evidence to assess
complex gambling-related issues to guide policy decisions. Researchers, health care
providers and policymakers will also benefit from ongoing exchange of information
concerning their needs and motives related to the use of evidence.
The Centre will provide decision makers with current, reliable
knowledge and establish dialogue between stakeholders.
Specifically, the Centre will:
• Prepare policy briefs and other rapid response products at the request of
stakeholders
• Create literature reviews at the request of stakeholders or for general
dissemination
• Establish and facilitate decision making panels/forums and briefings to exchange
information about knowledge gaps, research needs for prevention and treatment
• Facilitate the establishment of standards/best practices for gambling practice and
policies and share this information with decision makers during panels/forums
6.1.4. Facilitate learning
Many Canadians have a limited understanding of the factors affecting health, individual
risk factors for problem gambling, and the harmful effects gambling can have on
individuals, their families and society. There is a dearth of skills required to critically
appraise and understand the implications of research findings in relation to prevention
and treatment services and policy decisions. Moreover, the environment for
collaborative problem solving with regard to harmful gambling is weak. All of our
stakeholders can benefit from education on issues in health care, research, and
gambling policy to be applied or used to minimize the harms from gambling and improve
the outcomes of problem gamblers, their families and society.
The Centre will create learning
opportunities for its stakeholders.
and
problem
solving
Page 26
Specifically, the Centre will:
• Host and participate in education workshops, conferences and webinars
• Provide learning opportunities for cooperative education and graduate students
• Host and participate in the international Think Tank on Gambling Research,
Policy and Practice
• Establish a platform for stakeholders to identify and share their learning needs
6.15 Knowledge Inquiry
Putting knowledge into action includes the multiple steps between knowledge creation
and its real-world application. On the one hand it can be argued that the creation of new
knowledge rarely leads to its widespread use and, hence, rarely has a significant impact
on health. However, on the other hand, knowledge translation and exchange is
impossible without the creation of new and relevant knowledge. Strategic research
(based on the Centre’s analysis of where the research is most needed) can provide new
evidence to enhance gambling prevention/treatment programs, and gambling industry
standards and policy.
The Centre will build on its expertise in coordinating strategic
problem gambling research to produce research evidence that
can be applied to reduce the harm from gambling and improve
outcomes for gamblers and their families.
Specifically, the Centre will:
• Perform secondary analysis of research data contained in OPGRC’s databases
to address gaps in knowledge
• Offer knowledge translation and exchange awards to address a KTE research
gap or to facilitate knowledge uptake
• Address knowledge questions posed by stakeholders
6.16 Monitor, Evaluate, Adjust
The Centre is committed to providing value for resources invested, continually
improving our programs and exceeding expectations. We are accountable to our funder
for the use of resources and to all of our stakeholders for the effectiveness and
relevance of our activities to improve health care for gamblers, and drive health care
and gambling industry policy change. The Centre will put in place an ongoing
mechanism for the objective and systematic evaluation of all of the activities of the
Centre to ensure that they meet and/or exceed expectations of the funder and our major
stakeholder groups.
Determining whether the Centre’s Knowledge Translation and Exchange Program
Model is successful, and why and in what context it is successful, is critical for ensuring
sustained knowledge-use with regard to policy and practice decisions (59). We
recognize that knowledge may be utilized in different ways, and take different forms,
depending on the context (60). The Centre will encourage sustained implementation of
its Knowledge Translation and Exchange Program Model by remaining relevant with
Page 27
respect to research developments involving problem gambling; identifying current
stakeholder attitudes, motivations and needs with regard to their use of evidence; and
identifying new networks of collaborators. This monitoring, evaluation and adjustment
function is embedded in all KTE phases and functions.
The Centre will monitor and evaluate whether research was
used, how it was used, and assess stakeholders’ changing KTE
needs and adjust activities to facilitate knowledge use.
Specifically, the Centre will:
• Perform knowledge audits to take stock of resources and knowledge flow
• Assess stakeholders’ awareness and use of, and satisfaction with KTE
products/services
• Assess barriers and facilitators of knowledge use
• Develop program assessment and evaluation tools
• Assess the impact of its KTE products/services
• Monitor the changing gambling environment
6.2
Features of the Knowledge Translation and Exchange Program Model
The Centre’s proposed model builds on OPGRC’s strength – our knowledge base.
The foundation for our transition into a KTE organization is the knowledge and thought
leadership that OPGRC has developed over the past 12 years by guiding research
initiatives, building capacity for Ontario researchers and students, and strengthening
translation and dissemination of knowledge to stakeholders in Ontario, across Canada,
and around the world. From this foundation, we have formed highly effective
partnerships to develop the Conceptual Framework of Harmful Gambling and identified
research needs through the development of the Problem Gambling Research
Framework. OPGRC is now in a strong position to become a leader in gambling-related
knowledge translation and exchange. We have thoughtfully considered the KTE
proposed program model comprised of core activities. These activities will provide
guidance for evidence-informed decisions in policy and gambling regulation, and
develop best practices for treatment and prevention. Figure 3 below provides an
illustration of our leadership and natural evolution to a knowledge translation and
exchange organization.
Page 28
Figure 3. Building on our knowledge base to deliver a KTE program.
Other significant features of the Centre’s KTE strategy are:
 It has widespread relevance. The evidence we synthesize and transfer can
inform policies, support health systems (client-care, prevention/treatment
programs), and drive strategic research agendas for stakeholders (e.g., Applied
health research questions (AHRQs), Ontario’s Problem Gambling Strategy).
 It is unique and collaborative. The Centre will not duplicate or undermine the
work of allied organizations, including the Responsible Gambling Council (RGC)
and the Problem Gambling Institute of Ontario (located at CAMH).
The Centre’s KTE strategy is unique and collaborative. No other
Ontario organization possesses a combination of:
 independence and objectivity;
 gambling-related knowledge, as synthesized in its
Conceptual and Research Framework;
 strong provincial, Canadian and international partnerships
with researchers, treatment providers, and gambling
industry leaders; and
 capacity to foster and support research and knowledge
translation and exchange initiatives.
Although other organizations offer some knowledge translation and exchange
activities related to responsible gambling or treatment (for the gambling industry,
the public, and treatment services), a gap remains between connecting and
bridging those knowledge bases to support evidence-based health care and
policy making. The Centre will collaborate with these organizations on
Page 29
projects/initiatives (e.g., Discovery Conference, Centre for the Development of
Best Practices, CAMH webinars and listserv community) to promote the transfer
and exchange of all relevant knowledge.
6.3 Benefits and Positive Impacts of the KTE Program
Knowledge translation and exchange help decision makers and those who support them
to do their job better or more efficiently – namely to find and use research evidence to
support policy making in the health system and gambling industry. A KTE strategy will
increase the return to society from investments in research by promoting the use of
valuable knowledge in practice and policy. Ultimately, the Centre’s KTE strategy will
eliminate harm from gambling and save the Ontario government and taxpayers money.
OPGRC’s KTE strategy will have short- and long-term beneficial effects.
The strategy will:
 increase awareness of the harmful effects of gambling; the complexities related
to problem gambling; the gaps in gambling research that can be used to drive
MOHLTC research agendas (Applied health research questions (AHRQs),
Ontario Problem Gambling Strategy); and the resources available for prevention
and treatment of gambling problems;
 facilitate the development of strong partnerships with stakeholders;
 increase awareness of harmful gambling as a health and social-economic
concern in Ontario;
 increase the use of evidence in decision making including prevention/treatment
programs and policy; and
 increase support for gambling-related research to better inform health care
practices, best practices for gambling operators, and policy.
The Centre’s KTE strategy will build capacity in knowledge translation and exchange
with regard to harmful gambling by:
 increasing knowledge awareness, and responsiveness about harmful gambling
among health care providers, policy makers, and communities by providing
current and relevant information about gambling research, prevention/treatment
programs, and best practices;
 supporting KTE initiatives by other organizations such as RGC and CAMH
thereby increasing province-wide efficiency;
 appointing researchers and treatment providers as associates with whom we will
maintain ongoing and mutually beneficial relationships;
 creating student cooperative education placements;
 developing staff skills in knowledge translation and exchange, policy and problem
gambling research through the use of workshops and conferences; and
 creating new staff positions for knowledge translation and exchange and
communication specialists.
Page 30
7
Challenges and Risks
Since 2000, one of OPGRC’s mandates was to gather and disseminate research
findings related to the prevention and treatment of problem gambling, and other
gambling-related topics. This role has provided a platform for its current evolution into a
comprehensive KTE organization. Based upon prior experience, the Centre
acknowledges it will face challenges during the transition, including the following four
major challenges and risks:
1.
Complexity of KTE. KTE is extraordinarily wide-ranging and complex. A
plethora of processes and tools are involved in executing an effective KTE program.
And, even though there are many strategies for KTE, it currently is not clear which ones
should be used in which contexts (49). The Centre will manage this risk by having
ongoing consultations and partnerships with KTE experts (e.g., National Collaborating
Centre for Methods and Tools (NCCMT), Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences). The
Centre is consulting with KTE experts during its strategic planning stage, and
undertaking a KTE needs assessment. The Centre will continue to seek expert advice
and train staff in KTE science.
2.
Establishing KTE credibility. Establishing the Centre’s credibility as a KTE
organization, as it transitions from its current function as a research centre, will take
time. The Centre’s credibility will depend on successful partnerships/collaborations with
knowledge translation and exchange experts, and educating staff in KTE science. As
noted above, we are developing relationships with KTE experts and training staff in KTE
science.
3.
Core capabilities. Successful implementation of OPGRC’s transition plan will be
dependent on its core capabilities; many of its new functions and activities will require
new skills. OPGRC has analyzed the impact that its Knowledge Translation and
Exchange Program Model will have on individual jobs, and on the workflow that forms
the basis of its three-year plan (e.g., staff loss, professional development). OPGRC has
identified the following core capabilities, some of which will involve training of current
staff and/or the hiring of personnel with specialized skills.
 Staff who can serve as “knowledge brokers” will be requires. This involves
operating as a communication channel, representative and mediator between
the Centre and its stakeholders. Broker training might include: critical appraisal
of research, research methodology, policy development, adult education,
communications, and mediation11. As OPGRC moves forward, staff
understanding of the political environment, policy issues, and
media/communications skills will be essential.
 Knowledge translation and exchange skills for designing effective KTE
activities, monitoring and evaluating program implementation and program
success, adjusting KTE activities, and managing knowledge translation awards.
We will consult with KTE experts and train/hire staff specializing in KTE.
11
http://www.cfhi-fcass.ca/migrated/pdf/event_reports/brokers_final_e.pdf, retrieved December 4, 2012.
Page 31
 Critical research appraisal skills to complete literature reviews, provide
recommendations for AHRQs, and update (and present) the Conceptual
Framework and Research Framework.
 Strong communication, information technology skills, web design/management,
and database management skills.
 “Customer” focused mindset.
4.
Communication with stakeholders. Evolving into a KTE organization will
elevate the Centre’s communication needs. OPGRC will need to inform key
stakeholders about its transition plan, and seek ongoing feedback from key
stakeholders (i.e., OLG, AGCO, RGC, CAMH, and researchers) using consistent
messaging. We must reassure currently funded researchers that ongoing projects will
continue to be funded but there will be organizational changes in the future. This task
requires ongoing consultation with communications experts who understand the everchanging political environment and the sensitivities of OPGRC-funded researchers who
face changes in research support and capacity. We are currently working with experts
to develop an integrated communication plan.
8 Communication and Marketing
Effective strategic communication is the key to successfully implementing OPGRC’s
strategic and organizational initiatives. Communication is the glue that binds internal
and external stakeholders to a shared vision, mission and activities related to OPGRC’s
future KTE direction. It is essential that the Centre provide its stakeholders with timely,
consistent, high quality information about its proposed strategic and organizational
changes. It is equally important to listen to stakeholders and actively solicit their
feedback, and then respond constructively. We have developed a communication plan
that specifies the nature, flow, format, media and timing of this information.
In March 2013, OPGRC launched a communication plan to engage key stakeholders in
providing support and feedback regarding its evolution into a KTE organization. In order,
these meetings included the Ministry of Finance, OLG and AGCO; RGC and CAMH;
and Ontario gambling researchers. From these meetings, there were clear indications
that OPGRC was regarded as a leader in objective research and capacity building, and
that there is a growing need for applied research to inform best practices for gambling
operations and health services available to problem gamblers and their families. The
Centre can be a leader in knowledge translation and exchange for gambling including
its potential for harm in Ontario, across Canada and worldwide.
Communication planning might also involve marketing; the Centre’s KTE initiatives and
activities will be successful only if its users are aware of them. We will therefore launch
a marketing strategy directed to all stakeholders that might consist of formal and
informal communication with stakeholders using multi-media and social media.
Page 32
9 The Action Plan: A Three-Year Transition Plan
OPGRC developed a transition plan designed to show how it intends to increase
knowledge translation and exchange initiatives and activities for fiscal years 2013-2016.
Adequate development of some products and services will require resources and time,
resulting in the three-year phased progression. Appendix 4 provides a detailed list of the
Centre’s objectives, activities we intend to implement to achieve those objectives, and
the date to be achieved. Many of our activities are ongoing and are indicated as such in
the Appendix.
10 Financial Plan
A budget for fiscal year 2013-14 to 2015-16 is provided in Appendix 6. As outlined in the
budget summary, resources allocated for ongoing research awards (i.e., investigatordriven research) will decrease as resources for knowledge inquiry (i.e., AHRQs, KT
awards, secondary data analysis) and other knowledge translation and exchange
activities (i.e., all other activities in the program model) will increase each year as
OPGRC evolves into a fully functioning and comprehensive knowledge translation and
exchange centre.
11 Measuring Successful Action
Unlike the business world, non-profit organizations do not have a clear bottom line to
determine how well they are achieving their mission. Research has shown that a
program's success is significantly affected by how well organizational processes work in
carrying out its mission. OPGRC has addressed the organizational elements often
identified as significant contributors to non-profit organizational effectiveness including
(61):
 A well-organized Board with able, involved members; the Centre will operate with
its own charter and Board of Directors. Its Board members have extensive
experience in various health sectors, health research, addictions and psychology.
Board members with KTE expertise will be recruited.
 A clear Vision and Mission for the organization that is regularly reviewed by the
Board.
 Strong leadership and management systems to provide ongoing support,
motivation, and regular employee performance evaluations.
 Stable finances (see the three-year financial plan).
Two key knowledge translation success indicators are the engagement of the target
audiences (including interaction), and the use or application of knowledge (54). To
achieve success, the Centre will need to decide whether its past programs, functions
and activities fit its new Knowledge Translation and Exchange Program Model. This will
include decisions about the optimal use of time and resources; determining whether the
program is meeting stakeholder needs; identifying ways of improving programs; and
demonstrating the effectiveness of programs to stakeholders.
Page 33
11.1 Evaluation plan
Decisions will be based on structured formal evaluations rather than on potentially
biased informal feedback from stakeholders and other observations. Program
evaluation requires a structured approach in the form of “the systematic gathering,
analysis and reporting of data about a program to assist in decision making” (Ontario
Ministry of Health, Public Health Branch, 1996).
Public Health Ontario (62) and the NCCMT National Registry of Methods and Tools12,
have produced workbooks to support health research program evaluation (including
knowledge translation and exchange). With ongoing evaluation, we are confident the
Centre will impact gambling-related health concerns and be accountable to its
stakeholders, including government, gambling operators, treatment providers,
researchers and communities.
As OPGRC transitions into its new role, the implementation of new programs will need
to be evaluated. A three-stage program evaluation process is recommended to fulfill this
requirement; these stages build on one another, with the end goal being to evaluate
short-and long-term program impacts (62). Figure 4 illustrates the three evaluation
stages, and identifies example activities or questions involved in evaluating success.
This evaluation strategy enhances the Centre’s Monitor, Evaluate; Adjust activities
described earlier. Appendix 5 provides a list of performance measures, potential risks
and evaluation criteria per activity.
Formative evaluation. Formative evaluation focuses on programs that are under
development. OPGRC is currently planning its KTE program to ensure its program
development is based on its stakeholders’ needs, and that programs are using effective
and appropriate materials and procedures.
Specifically, the Centre will:
• Define objectives and goals;
• Identify target audiences;
• Identify knowledge translation and exchange needs;
• Document and understand the political and research context;
• Take stock of available resources;
• Design program strategies; and
• Assess which factors will influence levels of participation and program success;
Process evaluation. Process evaluation focuses on programs that are already
underway; its goal is to assess procedures and tasks involved in providing a program.
Specifically, the Centre will:
• Track the quantity and description of people who are reached by our program;
• Track the quantity and types of services provided;
• Provide descriptions of how services are provided;
12
National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools (2012). Evaluation module: CIHR resource. Hamilton, ON:
McMaster University. Retrieved from http://www.nccmt.ca/registry/view/eng/149.html, February 25, 2013.
Page 34
•
•
Describe what actually occurs while providing services, and the quality of
services provided; and
Implement evaluations of short term outcomes
Summative evaluation. Summative evaluation focuses on programs that are already
underway or completed: its goal is to assess a program’s outcomes and impacts
Specifically, the Centre will:
• Evaluate changes in attitudes, knowledge and/or behaviours;
• Evaluate changes in negative impacts of gambling on those participating in
gambling;
• Evaluate efficiency;
• Assess the impact of changes in policies and practices; and
• Perform short- and long-term impact assessments.
Figure 4. Stages in program evaluation.
Adapted from Jacobs (1988) (63).
Page 35
12 Summary
Ontario lottery and gaming are not only here to stay, but they continue to expand in the
number and types of gambling opportunities. With these changes, Ontario can expect
an increase in gambling problems for individuals, their families, and the community.
Now more than ever, Ontario must respond to the growing need for effective, evidencebased decision making in client care, prevention, treatment, and policy. OPGRC has
demonstrated leadership in understanding gambling-related knowledge, creating
partnerships and coordinating independent research in Ontario, across Canada, and
worldwide. OPGRC is in a strong position to put relevant knowledge in the hands of
those who should and can bring about change. OPGRC’s proposal to evolve into a
knowledge translation and exchange centre will better serve the population of gamblers
and problem gamblers; reduce the harms from gaming modernization; and help
decision makers find and use evidence to support their practices and decisions.
Page 36
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
WILLIAMS, R. J., VOLBERG, R. A. & STEVENS, R. (2012) The population prevalence
of problem gambling: Methodological influences, standardized, rates,
jurisdictional differences, and worldwide trends. Report for the Ontario Problem
Gambling Research Centre and the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term
Care.
ONTARIO LOTTERY AND GAMING CORPORATION (OLG) (2012) Modernizing Gaming
and Lottery in Ontario: Strategic business review/Advice to government.
COX, B. J., YU, N., AFIFI, T. O. & LADOUCEUR, R. (2005) A national survey of
gambling problems in Canada, Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 50, 213-217.
VOLBERG, R. (2001) When the chips are down: Problem Gambling in America.
(New York, The Century Foundation Press).
ROOM, R., TURNER, N. E. & IALOMITEANU, A. (1999) Community effects of the
opening of the Niagara Casino, Addiction Theory and Research, 94, 1449-1466.
DALTON, A., STOVER, A., VANDERLINDEN, L. & TURNER, N. E. (2012) Toronto Public
Health. The Health Impacts of Gambling Expansion in Toronto – Technical
Report.
WOOD, R. T. & W ILLIAMS, R. (2009) Internet gambling: Prevalence, patterns,
problems, and policy options. Final report prepared for the Ontario Problem
Gambling Research Centre.
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF WELFARE (1996) Gambling in Canada.
KORN, D. A. & SHAFFER, H. J. (1999) Gambling and the health of the public:
Adopting a public health perspective, J Gambl Stud, 15, 289-365.
WILLIAMS, R. J., REHM, J. & STEVENS, R. (2011) The social and economic impacts
of gambling. Final Report for the Canadian Consortium for Gambling Research.
WILLIAMS, R. J., BELANGER, Y. D. & ARTHUR, J. N. (2011) Gambling in Alberta:
History, current status, and socioeconomic impacts. Final report to the Alberta
Gaming Research Institute.
AFIFI, T. O., COX, B. J., MARTENS, P. J., SAREEN, J. & ENNS, M. W. (2010) The
relationship between problem gambling and mental and physical health
correlates among a nationally representative sample of Canadian women, Can J
Public Health, 101, 171-5.
PASTERNAK, A. V. T. & FLEMING, M. F. (1999) Prevalence of gambling disorders in
a primary care setting, Arch Fam Med, 8, 515-20.
BERGH, C. & KFIHLHORN, E. (1994) Social, psychological and physical
consequences of pathological gambling in Sweden, Journal of Gambling Studies,
10, 275-285.
PRODUCTIVITY COMMISSION (1999) Australia's gambling industries. Report No. 10,
AusInfo, Canberra.
PARHAMI, I., SIANI, A., ROSENTHAL, R. J. & FONG, T. W. (2012) Pathological
Gambling, Problem Gambling and Sleep Complaints: An Analysis of the National
Comorbidity Survey: Replication (NCS-R), J Gambl Stud.
PARHAMI, I., SIANI, A., ROSENTHAL, R. J. et al. (2012) Sleep and gambling severity
in a community sample of gamblers, J Addict Dis, 31, 67-79.
Page 37
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
BLACK, D. W., SHAW , M., MCCORMICK, B. & ALLEN, J. (2012) Pathological
gambling: relationship to obesity, self-reported chronic medical conditions, poor
lifestyle choices, and impaired quality of life, Compr Psychiatry, 54, 97-104.
POTENZA, M. N., FIELLIN, D. A., HENINGER, G. R., ROUNSAVILLE, B. J. & MAZURE, C.
M. (2002) Gambling: an addictive behavior with health and primary care
implications, J Gen Intern Med, 17, 721-32.
NEW ZEALAND MINISTRY OF HEALTH (2008) Raising the odds? Gambling behaviour
and neighbourhood access to gambling venues in New Zealand. (Wellington:
Ministry of Health).
LORAINS, F. K., COWLISHAW , S. & THOMAS, S. A. (2011) Prevalence of comorbid
disorders in problem and pathological gambling: systematic review and metaanalysis of population surveys, Addiction, 106, 490-8.
CROCKFORD, D. N. & EL-GUEBALY, N. (1998) Psychiatric comorbidity in
pathological gambling: a critical review, Can J Psychiatry, 43, 43-50.
PETRY, N. (2005) Comorbidity of disordered gambling and other psychiatric
disorders, in: Petry, N. (Ed.) Pathological Gambling: Etiology, Comorbidity and
Treatment (Washington, DC, American Psychological Association).
HODGINS, D. C., MANSLEY, C. & THYGESEN, K. (2006) Risk factors for suicide
ideation and attempts among pathological gamblers, Am J Addict, 15, 303-10.
SEGUIN, M., BOYER, R., LESAGE, A. et al. (2010) Suicide and gambling:
psychopathology and treatment-seeking, Psychol Addict Behav, 24, 541-7.
PHILLIPS, D. P., W ELTY, W. R. & SMITH, M. M. (1997) Elevated suicide levels
associated with legalized gambling., Suicide & Life-Threatening Behavior 27,
373-378.
MCGRATH, D. S., BARRETT, S. P., STEWART, S. H. & MCGRATH, P. R. (2012) A
comparison of gambling behavior, problem gambling indices, and reasons for
gambling among smokers and nonsmokers who gamble: evidence from a
provincial gambling prevalence study, Nicotine Tob Res, 14, 833-9.
MOMPER, S. L., DELVA, J., GROGAN-KAYLOR, A., SANCHEZ, N. & VOLBERG, R. A.
(2010) The association of at-risk, problem, and pathological gambling with
substance use, depression, and arrest history. , Journal of Gambling Issues, 732.
OLIVEIRA, M. P., SILVEIRA, D. X. & SILVA, M. T. (2008) [Pathological gambling and
its consequences for public health], Rev Saude Publica, 42, 542-9.
BLACK, D. W., SHAW , M. C., MCCORMICK, B. A. & ALLEN, J. (2012) Marital status,
childhood maltreatment, and family dysfunction: a controlled study of pathological
gambling, J Clin Psychiatry, 73, 1293-7.
AFIFI, T. O., BROWNRIDGE, D. A., MACMILLAN, H. & SAREEN, J. (2010) The
relationship of gambling to intimate partner violence and child maltreatment in a
nationally representative sample, J Psychiatr Res, 44, 331-7.
MUELLEMAN, R. L., DENOTTER, T., W ADMAN, M. C., TRAN, T. P. & ANDERSON, J.
(2002) Problem gambling in the partner of the emergency department patient as
a risk factor for intimate partner violence, J Emerg Med, 23, 307-12.
BELLRINGER, M., ABBOTT, M., COOMBES, R. et al. (2009) Problem gambling Formative investigation of the links between gambling (including problem
Page 38
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
gambling) and crime in New Zealand (Final report prepared for Ministry of Health,
New Zealand).
WILLIAMS, R. J., ROYSTON, J. & HAGEN, B. F. (2005) Gambling and problem
gambling within forensic populations, Criminal Justice and Behavior, 32, 665689.
POTENZA, M. N., STEINBERG, M. A., MCLAUGHLIN, S. D., ROUNSAVILLE, B. J. &
O'MALLEY, S. S. (2000) Illegal behaviors in problem gambling: analysis of data
from a gambling helpline, J Am Acad Psychiatry Law, 28, 389-403.
COTTI, C. D. & W ALKER, D. M. (2010) The impact of casinos on fatal alcoholrelated traffic accidents in the United States., Journal of Health Economics, 788796.
SPECTRUM GAMING GROUP (2009) Gambling in Connecticut: Analyzing the
economic and social impacts, pp. 193-197.
HONG, S. I., SACCO, P. & CUNNINGHAM-W ILLIAMS, R. M. (2009) An empirical
typology of lifetime and current gambling behaviors: association with health
status of older adults, Aging Ment Health, 13, 265-73.
MORASCO, B. J. & PETRY, N. M. (2006) Gambling problems and health functioning
in individuals receiving disability, Disabil Rehabil, 28, 619-23.
FONG, T. W. (2005) The biopsychosocial consequences of pathological gambling,
Psychiatry (Edgmont), 2, 22-30.
GRANT, J. E., SCHREIBER, L., ODLAUG, B. L. & KIM, S. W. (2010) Pathologic
gambling and bankruptcy, Compr Psychiatry, 51, 115-20.
EADINGTON, W. R. (2003) Measuring costs from permitted gaming: concepts and
categories in evaluating gambling's consequences, J Gambl Stud, 19, 185-213.
STRAUS, S. E., TETROE, J. & GRAHAM, I. (2009) Knowledge Translation in Health
Care : Moving from Evidence to Practice. (Wiley-Blackwell).
LAVIS, J. N., OXMAN, A. D., LEWIN, S. & FRETHEIM, A. (2009) SUPPORT Tools for
evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP), Health Res Policy Syst, 7 Suppl
1, I1.
BENNET, G. & JESSANI, N. (2011) The Knowledge Translation Toolkit: Bridging the
Know-Do Gap: A Resource for Researchers. (Sage India, IDRC).
ABBOTT, M., BINDE, P., HODGINS, D. et al. (2012) Conceptual Framework for
Harmful Gambling: An International Collaboration. The Ontario Problem
Gambling Research Centre (OPGRC), Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
GRAHAM, I. D., LOGAN, J., HARRISON, M. B. et al. (2006) Lost in knowledge
translation: time for a map?, J Contin Educ Health Prof, 26, 13-24.
DOBBINS, M., HANNA, S. E., CILISKA, D. et al. (2009) A randomized controlled trial
evaluating the impact of knowledge translation and exchange strategies,
Implement Sci, 4, 61.
LAVIS, J. N., ROBERTSON, D., W OODSIDE, J. M., MCLEOD, C. B. & ABELSON, J.
(2003) How can research organizations more effectively transfer research
knowledge to decision makers?, Milbank Q, 81, 221-48, 171-2.
LOMAS, J. (1993) Diffusion, dissemination and implementation: Who should do
what? , Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 703, 226-235.
CAPLAN, N. (1979) The two-communities theory and knowledge utilization.,
American Behavioral Scientist, 22, 459-470.
Page 39
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
JACOBSON, N., BUTTERILL, D. & GOERING, P. (2003) Development of a framework
for knowledge translation: understanding user context, J Health Serv Res Policy,
8, 94-9.
KING, L., HAWE, P. & WISE, M. (1998) Making dissemination a two way process. ,
Health Promotion International, 13, 237-244.
DAVISON, C. M. (2009) Knowledge translation: Implications for evaluation., in:
Ottoson, J. M. & Hawe, P. (Eds.) Knowledge utilization, diffusion,
implementation, transfer, and translation: Implications for evaluation. New
Directions for Evaluation, pp. 75-87 (San Francisco, Wiley Subscription Services
at Jossey-Bass).
STRAUS, S. E., TETROE, J. & GRAHAM, I. (2009) Defining knowledge translation,
CMAJ, 181, 165-8.
LAVIS, J. N. (2006) Research, public policymaking, and knowledge-translation
processes: Canadian efforts to build bridges, J Contin Educ Health Prof, 26, 3745.
ABERNATHY, T., COUTTS, J., ROYCE, D. et al. (2000) Knowledge transfer: Looking
beyond health. Report on the conference held in Toronto, October 26-27, 2000.
(Canadian Foundation for Healthcare Improvement).
ZARINPOUSH, F., VON SYCHOWSKI, S. & SPERLING, J. (2007) Effective Knowledge
Transfer and Exchange for Nonprofit Organizations: A Framework (Imagine
Canada).
LAVIS, J., ROSS, S., MCLEOD, C. & GILDINER, A. (2003) Measuring the impact of
health research. , Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 8, 165-170.
LARSEN, J. K. (1980) Knowledge utilization: What is it?, Knowledge: Creation,
Diffusion, Utilization, 1, 421-442.
INNOVATION NETWORK INC. (1999) Nonprofit Organizational Effectiveness: A
Literature Review. (The Learning Circles Project).
PUBLIC HEALTH ONTARIO (2008) Evaluting Health Promotion Programs Workbook,
The Heatlh Communication Unit, University of Toronto, Ontario.
JACOBS, F. (1988) The five-tiered approach to evaluation, in: Weiss, H. B. (Ed.)
Evaluating Family Programs. (New York., Aldine Publishers).
GOODSTADT, M. S. & SANTESSO, D. L. (2012) Developing a research program to
address problem gambling: A background paper for the Ontario Problem
Gambling Research Centre (OPGRC), Guelph, Ontario, Canada. .
LAVIS, J., DAVIES, H., OXMAN, A. et al. (2005) Towards systematic reviews that
inform health care management and policy-making, J Health Serv Res Policy, 10
Suppl 1, 35-48.
LAVIS, J. N., POSADA, F. B., HAINES, A. & OSEI, E. (2004) Use of research to inform
public policymaking, Lancet, 364, 1615-21.
Page 40
13 Appendices
Page 41
OPGRC KTE Detailed Proposal
Appendix 1
Conceptual Framework of Harmful Gambling
Page 42
OPGRC KTE Detailed Proposal
Appendix 2
Expert consultations and stakeholder discussions
Consultant
Institution/Organization
Dr. Onil Battacharyya
Keenan Research Center of the Li Ka Shing Research
Knowledge Institute
Dr. Maureen Dobbins
National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools
(NCCMT)
Barry Goodwin
Assistant Deputy to the Minister of Finance
Dr. Jon Kelly
Chief Executive Officer, RGC
Dr. John Lavis
McMaster University Health Forum
Jean Major
Chief Executive Officer, AGCO
Martha Otton
Chief Strategy Officer, AGCO
Paul Pellizarri
Executive Director - Policy & Social Responsibility, OLG
Dr. Sean Rourke
Scientific and Executive Director, Ontario HIV Treatment
Network (OHTN)
Nina Littman-Sharp
Manager, Problem Gambling Service for CAMH
Wayne Skinner
Deputy Director, CAMH Addictions Program
Page 43
Appendix 3
OPGRC Knowledge Translation Program Model example activities
Knowledge Repository
• Maintain a user-friendly searchable and up-to-date online storehouse for journal article abstracts
and synopses; grey literature including opinion papers on policy issues, press releases, newspaper
articles; minutes from publically available Ministry meetings regarding gambling-related policy issues.
Grey literature will also include student theses/dissertations and evaluation reports from treatment
and community agencies. In spring 2013 OPGRC will begin to solicit agencies to gather this grey
literature. OPGCR currently scans, gathers and summarizes research literature and these materials
are available online. We currently also post presentations from OPGRC workshops/conferences; and
OPGRC-funded educational animations.
• After a decade of operation, OPGRC has developed study databases from which secondary data
analyses can be performed to address new and relevant research questions. Databases will be
gathered and consolidated, and researchers will have contractual access to databases for
secondary data analyses.
• OPGRC will create new and maintain existing partnerships on three levels:
1. Strategic level – We will obtain formal agreements to store and circulate information about
researchers’ work in progress, to notify knowledge users of their participation in media/scientific
community events, and finally disseminate completed research findings (in the form of journal
abstract, synopsis, and open-access journal articles).
2. Adjunct scientist level – Through capacity building, we will appoint researchers and treatment
providers as adjunct scientists with whom we will maintain ongoing, mutually beneficial
relationships.
3. Network level – We will create extended partnerships, provincially, nationally, internationally to
gain broader perspectives on gambling issues.
Our partners’ biography, area of expertise, laboratory website link and contact information will be
made available on the OPGRC website so that all stakeholders will be able to discover the “who?”,
“what?” and “where?” regarding gambling issues.
These partnerships will be mutually beneficial: the Centre will build strong working relationships with
gambling researchers; researchers (and their work) will gain exposure outside of the scientific
community and their own KTE activities – an essential factor in the research funding process – will be
supported.
Page 44
Knowledge Products
• OPGRC already has an online repository of over 550 searchable synopses. Each synopsis provides a
one page lay language summary of a gambling research article published in a peer-reviewed journal.
Synopses will be expanded to include grey literature such as newspaper articles and opinion papers.
• OPGRC’s Conceptual Framework for Harmful Gambling was created by an international and
interdisciplinary team of experts on gambling and problem gambling (46). The Framework
comprehensively addresses problem gambling factors related to population risk and consolidates
theoretical understanding. The Framework will be updated annually based on emerging research. In
spring 2013, the Conceptual Framework will be linked to supporting and/or relevant synopses, articles
and OPGRC-funded projects within the storehouse.
• OPGRC has also created a strategic review and theoretical document Problem Gambling Research
Framework (64). The document is a comprehensive literature review of problem gambling risk factors,
social-economic consequences of gambling, and prevention/intervention strategies. This Framework
highlights gaps in gambling research to facilitate strategic programs of research. Importantly, this
document also offers a framework for understanding the problems and solutions for problem gambling.
The document will be available online and updated annually.
Page 45
Evidence-informed Advice
• Policy briefs are most likely to be read first in policy-making circles (45). The brief highlights a
project's policy-relevant findings in non-technical language to articulate the policy implications of the
work and recommendations.
• Literature reviews that address complex political issues are time efficient for public policymakers
because the research literature has already been identified, selected, appraised, and synthesized in a
systematic and transparent way (56, 65, 66).
• OPGRC will develop an evidence-based process for identifying best practices for land- and internetbased gambling following reviews of the literature and past and present practices and standards.
OPGRC will create an evaluation framework for making best practice recommendations on the basis of
assessment of a practice’s potential impact and the strength of evidence. The results will be valuable to
gambling operators and government decision makers.
• To the extent that funding allows, OPGRC will hold policy panels and briefing sessions in order to
create face-to-face dialogue between policymakers, researchers and other stakeholders when there is
policy debate.
Page 46
Facilitated Learning
• OPGRC will continue to offer stakeholders continuing education workshops that provide a platform
for dissemination and debate on “hot topics” in gambling research and effective knowledge translation
strategies in the gambling field. Workshops will teach participants how to critically appraise research
evidence and how to put this knowledge into action or practice (such as treatment program
development). We envision engaging research and knowledge translation partners (e.g., National
Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools at McMaster University; NCCMT) to lead these
workshops. The continuing education workshop provides an excellent opportunity for stakeholders to
come together to discuss and debate ways to improve gambling research and knowledge translation
while providing all stakeholders with a platform for networking.
• OPGRC will offer student placements within the organization which will provide students with
experiential learning related to KTE, project management, technology and website design, and
gambling issues.
• OPGRC participation at international conferences will increase visibility of the Centre and provide an
appropriate environment for presenting the Conceptual Framework and research findings completed
in-house.
• OPGRC will participate in and host the invitation-only international Think Tank on Gambling
Research, Policy and Practice organized for intensive gambling research discussion and problem
solving. The think tank brings people together with a variety of expertise and experience to tackle an
issue by discovering what we know, where we are and how to move forward.
Page 47
Knowledge Inquiry
• OPGRC’s will continue to address knowledge questions posed by its stakeholders. This might include
Applied Health Research Questions (AHRQ) posed by the Ontario Government. An AHRQ is a
question posed by a health system policy maker or provider in order to obtain research evidence to
13
inform planning, policy and program development that will benefit the entire Ontario health system.
• After a decade of operation, OPGRC has developed study databases from which secondary data
analyses can be performed to address new and relevant research questions by researchers and/or
OPGRC staff.
• OPGRC will continue to offer knowledge translation awards (e.g., “Take-it-to-the-Finish Award”) first
introduced in 2012. The awards are designed to encourage researchers to bridge the knowledge-toaction gap by examining users’ practice of measures, interventions, responsible gambling tools, and
other research results.
• To the extent that funding allows, OPGRC will identify gaps in gambling research. Through this
exercise, OPGRC will be in the position to address questions posed by stakeholders in areas of
greatest need (e.g., sex differences, ethno-cultural influences).
13
http://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/pro/ministry/research/ahrq.aspx
Page 48
Monitor, Evaluate, Adjust
• Monitor the knowledge-to-action gaps by systematically assessing stakeholders’ changing knowledge
translation needs (e.g., what knowledge product or facilitated learning would be useful to them) and
assess the barriers and facilitators to knowledge use. In spring 2013, OPGRC will engage knowledge
translation experts to assess stakeholders’ needs using key informant interviews and surveys.
• If we do not know what knowledge we already have, what our knowledge gaps are, and how that
knowledge flows within our organization, we cannot assess and improve our activities and practices. As
such, OPGCR will undertake knowledge audits to assess and list knowledge resources, assets and
flows.
• Measure the most effective ways to promote knowledge use in the decision making process by
developing assessment and evaluation tools with partners at the NCCMT who have developed tools
for various health sectors.
• Monitor policy debate and policy implementation to assess the impact of OPGRC functions in
evidence-informed decision making.
• Evaluate stakeholders’ awareness of, satisfaction with and actual use of knowledge products and
facilitated learning opportunities in practice through online tracking, surveys or key informant
interviews. The NCCMT provides methods to organize this activity (e.g., guidelines, forums) and tools
or instruments to carry out this activity.
• Identify the Zeitgeist, or dominant school of thought, characterizing and influencing general attitudes
towards gambling and complex policy issues at any period in time. This is critical to providing timely
and relevant knowledge products and facilitated learning services.
Page 49
OPGRC KTE Detailed Proposal
Appendix 4
Timeline of KTE activities for fiscal year 2013-16
Fiscal Year 2013-14
Objective
1
Date to be
Achieved/
indicate if
ongoing
Knowledge Repository
1.1 Strengthen capacity to gather,
store and disseminate knowledge
products and deliver services.
1.2 Develop and acquire problem
gambling research data to be
used by the centre and
researchers to answer questions
about problem gambling.
1.3 Engage experts and combine
knowledge.
2
Activity or Milestone
Assess how to develop a user-friendly,
searchable website and data storage system to
disseminate knowledge products and engage
stakeholders to seek knowledge. Development
of the site/systems might begin.
Gather and merge study datasets and develop a
process to provide access to data.
March 31, 2014
Communicate with and recruit Ontario adjunct
research scientists and partner with treatment
provider experts.
March 31, 2014
Continue to provide access to plain language
summaries of peer-reviewed research articles
(The Synopsis Project).
Ongoing to 2016
Ongoing to 2016
Knowledge Products
2.1 Strengthen dissemination of
various forms of knowledge.
Page 50
2.2 Promote awareness of the harms
of gambling.
Engage international panel of experts to jointly
author an updated edition of the Conceptual
Framework of Harmful Gambling based on new
research findings and trends.
Ongoing to 2016
Work with KTE communication staff to maximize
dissemination of information.
2.3 Provide an annual summary of
the key research and policy
issues relating to problem
gambling.
Develop a Problem Gambling Research
Framework as a learning tool, advisory/review
document of new research findings and trends.
Ongoing to 2016
Work with KTE communication staff to maximize
dissemination of information.
3
Evidence-informed Advice
3.1 Provide expert advice to
stakeholders.
Create reviews, summaries and/or policy briefs,
and perform literature searches for stakeholders
as requested.
Ongoing to 2016
Establish methods to discuss gambling issues
(e.g., panels/forums/roundtables/webinars).
4
Facilitated Learning
4.1 Provide learning opportunities for
research students.
5
Host 1 student-oriented gambling workshop or
webinar focused on current learning needs.
March 31, 2014
Existing high quality problem gambling research
is completed on time and in scope, and a final
report is submitted.
Ongoing to 2016
Knowledge Inquiry
5.1 Continue funding for committed
research projects.
Page 51
5.2 Provide expert advice on problem
gambling issues.
Work with MOHLTC and other Ministries and
Government agencies to address their Applied
Health Research Questions needs.
Ongoing to 2016
5.3 Engage researchers and
practitioners in knowledge
translation.
Develop a model for funding knowledge
translation awards to encourage researchers to
bridge the knowledge into practice gap by
examining users’ practice of measures,
interventions, responsible gambling tools, and
other research results. Offer one award this fiscal
year.
Work with a broader stakeholder group to identify
relevant themes and gaps in gambling
knowledge that merit research resources.
March 31, 2014
6.1 Establish and maintain
relationships with stakeholders to
improve knowledge translation
activities.
Create a platform for stakeholders to provide
feedback and insight into what knowledge
translation products and services they need.
Ongoing to 2016
6.2 Strengthen our ability to deliver
relevant knowledge.
Monitor the knowledge use and systematically
assess stakeholders’ changing knowledge
translation needs (e.g., what knowledge product
or facilitated learning is useful to them).
Assess barriers to knowledge use.
Develop tools to assess program success.
Ongoing to 2016
5.4 Strengthen strategic research.
6
Ongoing to 2016
Monitor, Evaluate, Adjust
6.3 Ensure program success.
Ongoing to 2016
Page 52
Fiscal Year 2014-15
Objective
1
Activity or Milestone
Date to be
Achieved/
indicate if
ongoing
Knowledge Repository
1.1 Continued development and
maintenance of the web site and
the data storage functions.
Continue to develop and maintain the userfriendly, searchable website and data storage
system to disseminate knowledge products and
engage stakeholders to seek knowledge.
Ongoing to 2016
1.2 Integrate new problem gambling
research data into datasets as
they become available
Gather and merge datasets in order to provide
for stakeholders
March 31, 2015
1.3 Engage experts and combine
knowledge.
Continue communication with and recruitment of
Ontario adjunct research scientists and
treatment provider experts as partners.
Pilot the provision of access to datasets in order
to conduct secondary data analyses.
Ongoing to 2016
Continue to engage international panel of
experts to jointly author an updated edition of the
Conceptual Framework of Harmful Gambling
based on new research findings and trends.
Ongoing to 2016
1.4 Share a wealth of research data.
2
March 31, 2015
Knowledge Products
2.1 Continue to promote awareness
of the harms of gambling.
Work with KTE communication staff to maximize
dissemination of information.
Page 53
2.2 Provide an annual summary of
the key research and policy
issues relating to problem
gambling.
Continue to update the Problem Gambling
Research Framework with new knowledge as a
learning tool, advisory/review document of new
research findings and trends.
Ongoing to 2016
Work with KTE communication staff to maximize
dissemination of information.
2.3 Strengthen dissemination of
various forms of knowledge.
Provide access to plain language summaries for
grey literature in addition to peer-reviewed
research studies (The Synopsis Project).
Ongoing to 2016
Create reviews, summaries and/or policy briefs,
and perform literature searches for stakeholders
as requested.
Host panels/forums/roundtables to discuss
gambling issues for stakeholders to problem
solve, set priorities, and/or assess stakeholder
needs.
Ongoing to 2016
4.1 Provide learning opportunities for
students and stakeholders.
Host one student- and one stakeholder-oriented
gambling workshop or webinar focused on
current learning needs.
March 31, 2015
4.2 Strengthen dissemination and
build presence and networks.
Attend and/or present at conferences.
Ongoing to 2016
3
Evidence-informed Advice
3.1 Provide expert advice to
stakeholders.
3.2 Provide expert advice to decision
makers through exchange and
dialogue.
4
Ongoing to 2016
Facilitated Learning
Page 54
5
Knowledge Inquiry
5.1 Continue funding for committed
research projects.
Existing high quality problem gambling research
is completed on time and in scope, final report
submission.
Ongoing to 2016
5.2 Provide expert advice on problem
gambling issues.
Work with MOHLTC and other Ministries and
Government agencies to address their Applied
Health Research Questions needs.
Ongoing to 2016
5.3 Engage researchers and
practitioners in knowledge
translation research.
Offer two knowledge translation awards to
encourage researchers to bridge the knowledge
into practice gap by examining users’ practice of
measures, interventions, responsible gambling
tools, and other research results.
Ongoing to 2016
5.4 Strengthen strategic research.
Work with a broader stakeholder group to
identify relevant themes and gaps in gambling
knowledge that merit research resources.
Ongoing to 2016
Assess short-term outcomes and possible
improvements to the KTE program using
previously developed tools.
Ongoing to 2016
6
Monitor, Evaluate, Adjust
6.1 Ensure program success.
Page 55
Fiscal Year 2015-16
Objective
Activity or Milestone
Date to be
Achieved/
indicate if
ongoing
1.1 Continued development and
maintenance of the web site and
the data storage functions.
Continue to develop and maintain the userfriendly, searchable website and data storage
system to disseminate knowledge products/
engage stakeholders to seek knowledge.
Ongoing to 2016
1.2 Engage experts and combine
knowledge.
Continue communication with and recruitment of
Ontario adjunct research scientists and partner
with treatment provider experts.
Gather and merge datasets as they become
available.
Ongoing to 2016
Provide researchers, students and staff access
to datasets in order to conduct secondary data
analyses.
Ongoing to 2016
Continue to engage international panel of
experts to jointly author an updated edition of the
Conceptual Framework of Harmful Gambling
based on new research findings and trends.
Ongoing to 2016
1
Knowledge Repository
1.3 Integrate new problem gambling
research data into datasets as
they become available.
1.4 Share a wealth of research data.
2
Ongoing to 2016
Knowledge Products
2.1 Continue to promote awareness
of the harms of gambling.
Work with KTE communication staff to maximize
dissemination of information.
Page 56
2.2 Provide an annual summary of
the key research and policy
issues relating to problem
gambling.
2.3 Strengthen dissemination of
various forms of knowledge.
3
Continue to update the Problem Gambling
Research Framework with new knowledge as a
learning tool, advisory/review document of new
research findings and trends.
Work with KTE communication staff to maximize
dissemination of information.
Provide access to plain language summaries for
grey literature and peer-reviewed research
studies (The Synopsis Project).
Ongoing to 2016
Ongoing to 2016
Evidence-informed Advice
3.1 Provide expert advice to
stakeholders.
Create reviews, summaries and/or policy briefs,
and perform literature searches for stakeholders
as requested.
Ongoing to 2016
3.2 Provide expert advice to decision
makers through exchange and
dialogue.
Host panels/forums/roundtables to discuss
gambling issues for stakeholders to problem
solve, set priorities, and/or assess stakeholder
needs.
Ongoing to 2016
4.1 Provide learning and networking
opportunities for students and
stakeholders.
Host one stakeholder and two student-oriented
gambling workshops or webinars with an expert
panel.
Ongoing to 2016
4.2 Provide problem solving and
networking opportunities for
stakeholders.
Host the International Think Tank on Gambling
Research, Policy and Practice.
April 2015
4.3 Strengthen dissemination and
build presence and networks.
Attend and/or present at conferences.
Ongoing to 2016
4
Facilitated Learning
Page 57
5
Knowledge Inquiry
5.1 Continue funding for committed
research projects.
Existing high quality problem gambling research
is completed on time and in scope, and a final
report submitted.
Ongoing to 2016
5.2 Provide expert advice on problem
gambling issues.
Work with MOHLTC and other Ministries and
Government agencies to address their Applied
Health Research Questions needs.
Ongoing to 2016
5.3 Engage researchers and
practitioners in knowledge
translation research.
Offer four knowledge translation awards to
encourage researchers to bridge the knowledge
into practice gap by examining users’ practice of
measures, interventions, responsible gambling
tools, and other research results.
Work with a broader stakeholder group to
identify relevant themes and gaps in gambling
knowledge that merit research resources.
Ongoing to 2016
Assess short-term and long-term outcomes and
program success using previously developed
tools.
Ongoing to 2016
5.4 Strengthen strategic research.
6
Ongoing to 2016
Monitor, Evaluate, Adjust
6.1 Ensure program success.
Page 58
OPGRC KTE Detailed Proposal
Appendix 5
Performance measures and evaluation criteria for KTE activities per fiscal year
Fiscal Year 2013-14
Activity or Milestone
1
Performance Measure
Potential Risks/
Contingencies
Evaluation Criteria
Knowledge repository
1.1
Create a user-friendly,
searchable website and data
storage system to
disseminate knowledge
products/ engage
stakeholders to seek
knowledge.
Survey stakeholders’
awareness of website
and satisfaction with
website functions and
appeal.
Centre lacking the
resources to take on
this task. We will seek
advice from fully
functional KTE
organizations and by
contracting out the
design work.
How well does the
product meet the
needs of knowledge
users?
1.2
Gather and merge study
datasets and develop a
system process to provide
access to these data.
A storage and online
data site is flexible to
meet transition
requirements.
Centre lacking the
resources to take on
this task.
Were available data
integrated into the
database? Was an
access system
created for users?
1.3
Open communication with
and recruit Ontario adjunct
research scientists and
partner with treatment
provider experts.
Obtain three to six
formal agreements for
the new funding period.
OPGRC transition may
be unappealing to
previously funded
researchers.
How many adjunct
research scientists
were appointed and
partnerships
established?
Page 59
2
Knowledge Products
2.1 Continue to provide access to
plain language summaries of
peer-reviewed research
articles (The Synopsis
Project).
Monitor use of
synopses.
Survey the relevancy
and readability of the
synopses.
Volume of literature;
plain language writing
is difficult and may
require training;
reluctance of
stakeholders to access
synopses; search
engine must be flexible.
Did stakeholder
access the Synopsis
Project? How relevant
was the synopsis to
the stakeholders?
2.2
Survey its relevancy,
breadth/depth and
readability.
Engaging original
author panel and/or
new authors.
How relevant was the
Framework to
stakeholders?
Engage international panel of
experts to jointly author an
updated edition of the
Conceptual Framework of
Harmful Gambling based on
new research findings and
trends.
Interest might be low
from stakeholders in
positions to make
decisions and/or set
priorities.
Work with KTE
communication staff to
maximize dissemination of
information.
2.3
Develop and disseminate the
Problem Gambling Research
Framework as a learning tool,
advisory/review document of
new research findings and
trends.
Monitor the use of the
Framework.
Problem gambling is
complex and the
literature large.
Interest might be low
from stakeholders in
positions to make
decisions and/or set
priorities.
How relevant was the
Framework to
stakeholders? How
often was the
Framework
referenced by
stakeholders?
Page 60
3
3.1
Evidence-informed Advice
Create reviews, summaries
and/or policy briefs, and
perform literature searches
for stakeholders as
requested.
Obtain feedback on the
quality and timeliness
of the advice.
Establish methods to discuss
gambling issues for
stakeholders to problem
solve, set priorities, and/or
assess stakeholder needs
(e.g., panels / forums /
roundtables/webinars).
Assess potential
participation by
stakeholders.
4
4.1
Were reviews,
summaries and/or
briefs request by or
used by
stakeholders?
How open are key
stakeholders to
participating in
methods established?
Which platform best
meets their needs?
Facilitated Learning
Host one student-oriented
gambling workshop or
webinar focused on current
learning needs.
5
5.1
Timeliness of material
is critical; stakeholders
may be unaware staff
can perform these
tasks. Interest might be
low from stakeholders
in positions to make
decisions and/or set
priorities.
Assess participation,
and obtain feedback on
the usefulness of the
workshop.
There are few students
involved in gambling
research.
How many students
attended? How well
did the workshop
meet the students’
learning needs?
Knowledge Inquiry
Existing problem gambling
research is completed on
time and in scope, and a final
report is submitted.
Quality of interim and
final research reports
and timeliness.
Change in OPGRC role
away from being a
research funder may
weaken researchers
resolve to deliver
against contracts.
Did the projects
address the research
questions? Were
research projects
completed on time
with a report?
Page 61
5.2
Work with MOHLTC and
other Ministries and
Government agencies to
address their Applied Health
Research Questions needs.
Stakeholder satisfaction
with OPGRC expert
advice.
MOHLTC chooses not
to fund three-year KTE
proposal.
Did OPGRC and the
stakeholder(s) work
collaboratively to
develop and address
research questions
based on needs?
5.3
Develop and offer knowledge
translation awards.
Monitor submissions
and researcher interest.
Few gambling
researchers are
involved in knowledge
translation. Interest
may be low. OPGRC
transition may be
unappealing to
previously funded
researchers.
Do the topics address
KTE gaps/needs?
5.4
Work with a broader
stakeholder group to identify
relevant themes and gaps in
gambling knowledge that
merit research resources.
Monitor stakeholder
engagement to identify
themes/gaps in
knowledge.
Lack of stakeholder
interest and support.
Lack of resources.
Were stakeholders
engaged in
themes/gaps
analysis? Was there
uptake on
recommendations?
6
6.1
Monitor, Evaluate, Adjust
Create a platform for
stakeholders to provide
feedback and insight into
what knowledge translation
products and services they
need.
Monitor use and
stakeholder satisfaction
with the platform.
Engage stakeholders to
determine best practice
platforms.
Was the platform
used for discussion
and dissemination
purposes? How many
stakeholders use the
platform?
Page 62
6.2
6.3
Monitor the knowledge use
and systematically assess
stakeholders’ changing
knowledge translation needs
(e.g., what knowledge
product or facilitated learning
is useful to them).
Assess barriers to knowledge
use.
Develop tools to assess
program success.
Assess stakeholders’
willingness to provide
useful feedback and
feasibility of altering
products and services.
Stakeholders may be
uninterested or have
time constraints.
Stakeholders may not
know what they need
and/or in what format.
Was the assessment
performed with
various target
stakeholders? Were
suggested
improvements to the
KTE activity
implemented?
Quality of tools
developed / adapted
from other knowledge
translation
organizations.
Stakeholders may be
uninterested in
participating in the
assessments
Were tools to assess
program success
developed?
Page 63
Fiscal Year 2014-15
Activity or Milestone
1
1.1
1.2
Performance Measure
Potential Risks/
Contingencies
Evaluation Criteria
Knowledge Repository
Continued development and
maintenance of a userfriendly, searchable website
and data storage system to
disseminate knowledge
products/ engage
stakeholders to seek
knowledge.
Gather and merge datasets
in order to provide for
stakeholders
Survey stakeholders’
awareness of website
and satisfaction with
website functions and
appeal.
Centre lacking the
resources to take on
this task.
How well does the
product meet the
needs of knowledge
users?
Demonstrate
successful storing,
merging and a system
for accessing these
data.
Maintain linkage with
fully functioning data
warehouses so we can
keep track of current
best practices.
Were available data
integrated into the
database and made
available to users?
Existing problem
gambling researchers
may migrate to other
research interests since
there are fewer funds
available for
investigator driven
research.
Ethical concerns
regarding secondary
use of data.
Number of adjunct
research scientists
and partners that
remain engaged.
Number of new
adjunct scientists and
partnerships
established.
Was data accessed
and analysed ethically
and used to address
varied research
questions?
1.3
Continue communication with
Ontario researchers to
become adjunct research
scientists and treatment
provider experts as partners.
Obtain a maximum of
six formal agreements
for the funding period.
1.4
Provide researchers,
students and staff access to
datasets in order to conduct
secondary data analyses.
Monitor access
requests and
publication of results
emerging from the
database.
Page 64
2
2.1
Knowledge Products
Continue to engage
international panel of experts
to jointly author an updated
edition of the Conceptual
Framework of Harmful
Gambling based on new
research findings and trends.
Survey its relevancy,
breadth/depth and
readability.
Continue to update the
Problem Gambling Research
Framework with new
knowledge as a learning tool,
advisory/review document of
new research findings and
trends.
Monitor the use of the
Framework.
Provide access to plain
language summaries for grey
literature in addition to peerreviewed research studies
(The Synopsis Project).
Problem gambling is
complex and the
literature large.
Interest might be low
from stakeholders in
positions to make
decisions and/or set
priorities.
Work with a KTE
communication staff to
maximize dissemination of
information.
2.3
How relevant was the
Framework to
stakeholders?
Interest might be low
from stakeholders in
positions to make
decisions and/or set
priorities.
Work with a KTE
communication staff to
maximize dissemination of
information.
2.2
Engaging original
author panel and/or
new authors.
Monitor use of the
Synopsis Project.
Survey the relevancy
and readability of the
synopses.
Remaining current and
up to date on literature
is a challenge.
How relevant was the
Framework to
stakeholders? How
often was the
Framework
referenced by
stakeholders?
Did stakeholder
access the Synopsis
Project? How relevant
was the synopsis to
the stakeholders?
Page 65
3
3.1
Evidence-informed Advice
Create reviews, summaries
and/or policy briefs, and
perform literature searches
for stakeholders as
requested.
Obtain feedback on the
quality and timeliness
of the advice. Assess
potential participation
by stakeholders.
Timeliness of material
is critical; stakeholders
may be unaware staff
can perform these
tasks.
Were reviews,
summaries and/or
briefs request by or
used by
stakeholders?
Interest might be low
from stakeholders in
positions to make
decisions and/or set
priorities.
3.2
Host panels/forums/
roundtables to discuss
gambling issues for
stakeholders to problem
solve, set priorities, and/or
assess stakeholder needs.
4
4.1
Obtain feedback on the
quality and timeliness
of the advice.
Interest might be low
from stakeholders in
positions to make
decisions and/or set
priorities.
Did key stakeholders
to participate in the
established exchange
method? Did
stakeholders find the
exchange beneficial
regarding advice and
problem solving?
Facilitated Learning
Host one student- and one
stakeholder-oriented
gambling workshop or
webinar focused on current
learning needs.
Assess participation,
and obtain feedback on
the usefulness of the
discussions.
There are few students
involved in gambling
research. Stakeholder
interest might be low.
How many students
attended?
How many
stakeholders
attended? Did the
workshop meet the
participants’ learning
needs?
Page 66
4.2
Attend and/or present at
conferences.
5
Positive feedback from
participants that the
information we
disseminated was
useful to them.
Remaining current and
relevant in our
presentation is an ever
present issue - KT staff
will regularly review the
priority topics and
presentations.
How many
conferences were
attended? Was
material/knowledge
disseminated at the
conference?
Knowledge Inquiry
5.1
Existing problem gambling
research is completed on
time and in scope, final report
submission.
Quality of interim and
final research reports
and timeliness.
5.2
Work with MOHLTC and
other Ministries and
Government agencies to
address their Applied Health
Research Questions needs.
Stakeholder satisfaction
with OPGRC expert
advice.
5.3
Offer two knowledge
translation awards to
encourage researchers to
bridge the knowledge into
practice gap by examining
users’ practice of measures,
interventions, responsible
gambling tools, and other
research results.
Assess project
relevancy and interest
from the research and
treatment community.
Change in OPGRC role
away from being a
research funder may
weaken researchers
resolve to deliver
against contracts.
MOHLTC chooses not
to fund three-year KTE
proposal.
Few gambling
researchers are
involved in knowledge
translation. Interest
may be low. OPGRC
transition may be
unappealing to
previously funded
researchers.
Did the projects
address the research
questions? Were
research projects
completed on time
with a report?
Did OPGRC and the
stakeholder(s) work
collaboratively to
develop and address
research questions
based on needs?
Do the topics address
knowledge
gaps/needs? Did the
award result in quality
work?
Page 67
5.4
Work with a broader
stakeholder group to identify
relevant themes and gaps in
gambling knowledge that
merit research resources.
6
6.1
Monitor stakeholder
engagement to identify
themes/gaps in
knowledge.
Lack of stakeholder
interest and support.
Lack of resources.
Were stakeholders
engaged in
themes/gaps
analysis? Was there
uptake on
recommendations?
Monitor, Evaluate, Adjust
Assess short-term outcomes
and program success using
developed tools.
Survey awareness,
attitude change, use of
products and services,
policy discussions and
OPGRC participation in
forums, etc.
Assessment tools are
complex and assessing
impact (e.g., harm
reduction) difficult.
Were short-term goals
or outcomes met or in
progress? Were
identified
improvements
implemented?
Page 68
Fiscal Year 2015-16
Activity or Milestone
1
1.1
1.2
Performance Measure
Potential Risks/
Contingencies
Evaluation Criteria
Knowledge repository
Continued development and
maintenance of a userfriendly, searchable website
and data storage system to
disseminate knowledge
products/ engage
stakeholders to seek
knowledge.
Continue communication with
Ontario researchers to
become adjunct research
scientists and treatment
provider experts as partners.
1.3
Gather and merge datasets
as they become available.
1.4
Provide researchers,
students and staff access to
datasets in order to conduct
secondary data analyses.
Survey stakeholders’
awareness of website
and satisfaction with
website functions and
appeal.
Centre lacking the
resources to take on
this task.
How well does the
product meet the
needs of knowledge
users?
Obtain a maximum of
six formal agreements.
Existing problem
gambling researchers
may migrate to other
research interests since
there are fewer funds
available for
investigator driven
research
Demonstrate
successful storing,
merging and a system
for accessing these
data.
Monitor access
requests and
publication of results
emerging from the
database.
Maintain linkage with
fully functioning data
warehouses so we can
keep track of current
best practices.
Ethical concerns
regarding secondary
use of data.
Number of adjunct
research scientists
and partners that
remain engaged.
Number of new
adjunct research
scientists and
partnerships
established.
Were available data
integrated into the
database and made
available to users?
Was data accessed
and analysed ethically
and used to address
varied research
questions?
Page 69
2
2.1
Knowledge Products
Continue to engage
international panel of experts
to jointly author an updated
edition of the Conceptual
Framework of Harmful
Gambling based on new
research findings and trends.
Survey its relevancy,
breadth/depth and
readability.
2.3
How relevant was the
Framework to
stakeholders?
Interest might be low
from stakeholders in
positions to make
decisions and/or set
priorities.
Work with a KTE
communication staff to
maximize dissemination of
information.
2.2
Engaging original
author panel and/or
new authors.
Develop and disseminate the
Problem Gambling Research
Framework as a learning tool,
advisory/review document
and of new research findings
and trends.
Monitor the use of the
Framework.
Provide access to plain
language summaries for grey
and peer-reviewed research
studies (The Synopsis
Project).
Survey its relevancy,
breadth/depth and
readability.
Problem gambling is
complex and the
literature large.
Interest might be low
from stakeholders in
positions to make
decisions and/or set
priorities.
Problem gambling is
complex and the
literature large.
How relevant was the
Framework to
stakeholders? How
often was the
Framework
referenced by
stakeholders?
How relevant was the
synopsis to the
stakeholders? How
many stakeholders
accessed the
Synopsis Project?
Page 70
3
Evidence-informed Advice
3.1
Create reviews, summaries
and/or policy briefs, and
perform literature searches
for stakeholders as
requested.
Obtain feedback on the
quality and timeliness
of the advice. Assess
potential participation
by stakeholders.
3.2
Host panels/ forums/
roundtables to discuss
gambling issues for
stakeholders to problem
solve, set priorities, and/or
assess stakeholder needs.
Obtain feedback on the
quality and timeliness
of the advice.
Timeliness of material
is critical; stakeholders
may be unaware staff
can perform these
tasks. Interest might be
low from stakeholders
in positions to make
decisions and/or set
priorities.
Timeliness of material
is critical; stakeholders
may be unaware staff
can perform these
tasks.
Interest might be low
from stakeholders in
positions to make
decisions and/or set
priorities.
4
4.1
Were reviews,
summaries and/or
briefs request by or
used by
stakeholders?
Did key stakeholders
to participate in the
established exchange
method? Did
stakeholders find the
exchange beneficial
regarding advice and
problem solving?
Facilitated Learning
Host two student-oriented
and one stakeholder
gambling workshops or
webinars with an expert
panel.
Assess participation,
and obtain feedback on
the usefulness of the
workshop.
There are few students
involved in gambling
research.
How many key
stakeholders and
students attended?
Did the workshop
meet their learning
needs?
Page 71
4.2
Host the Think Tank on
Gambling Research, Policy
and Practice.
Assess participation,
and obtain feedback on
the usefulness of the
discussions.
Recruiting international
experts to Ontario.
How many
international gambling
research leaders
attended? Was the
Think Tank relevant?
4.3
Attend and/or present at
conferences.
Positive feedback from
participants that the
information we
disseminated was
useful to them.
Remaining current and
relevant in our
presentation is an ever
present issue - KT staff
will regularly review the
priority topics and
presentations.
How many
conferences were
attended? Was
material/knowledge
disseminated at the
conference?
5
Knowledge Inquiry
5.1
Existing problem gambling
research is completed on
time and in scope, final report
submission.
Quality of interim and
final research reports
and timeliness.
Change in OPGRC role
away from being a
research funder may
weaken researchers
resolve to deliver
against contracts.
Did the projects
address the research
questions? Were
research projects
completed on time
with a report?
5.2
Work with MOHLTC and
other Ministries and
Government agencies to
address their Applied Health
Research Questions needs.
Stakeholder satisfaction
with OPGRC expert
advice.
MOHLTC chooses not
to fund three-year KTE
proposal.
Did OPGRC and the
stakeholder(s) work
collaboratively to
develop and address
research questions
based on needs?
Page 72
5.3
5.4
Offer four knowledge
translation awards to
encourage researchers to
bridge the knowledge into
practice gap by examining
users’ practice of measures,
interventions, responsible
gambling tools, and other
research results.
Work with a broader
stakeholder group to identify
relevant themes and gaps in
gambling knowledge that
merit research resources.
6
6.1
Assess project
relevancy and interest
from the research and
treatment community.
Monitor stakeholder
engagement to identify
themes/gaps in
knowledge.
Few gambling
researchers are
involved in knowledge
translation. Interest
may be low. OPGRC
transition may be
unappealing to
previously funded
researchers.
Lack of stakeholder
interest and support.
Lack of resources.
Do the topics address
KTE gaps/needs?
Were stakeholders
engaged in
themes/gaps
analysis? Was there
uptake on
recommendations?
Monitor, Evaluate, Adjust
Assess short and long-term
outcomes and program
success using developed
tools.
Survey awareness,
attitude change, use of
products and services,
policy discussions and
OPGRC participation in
forums, etc.,
Assessment tools are
complex and assessing
impact (e.g., harm
reduction) difficult.
Were short and longterm goals or
outcomes met?
Page 73
OPGRC KTE Detailed Proposal
Appendix 6
Budget Summary
OPGRC Budget 2013-14 to 2015-16
2013-14
2014-15
2015-16
Expenses
Salaries and Benefits
$ 694,151
$654,019
$662,663
Supplies and Services
$155,170
$137,275
$146,273
$95,000
$81,600
$83,232
$970,834
$587,989
$37,699
Research Review
$25,000
$25,000
$25,500
Partnership Research (CCGR)
$83,000
$ -
$ -
$183,000
$261,700
$338,434
Knowledge Products
$60,000
$61,200
$118,636
Evidence-Informed Advice
$30,000
$30,600
$57,222
Facilitated Learning
$83,500
$132,120
$330,282
Knowledge Inquiry
$402,500
$258,500
$479,770
$35,000
$35,200
$35,404
$1,872,834
$1,392,309
$1,422,947
$291,247
$260,787
$210,711
$3,108,402
$2,525,990
$2,525,827
Travel
Programs and Services
Ongoing Research Awards
Program
Knowledge Repository
Monitor/Evaluate/Adjust
Total Programs and Services
Indirect Costs
Total
Expenses
Note: These totals include all sources of funding
Page 74