{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025032938076416336, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.842342342342342, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Knowledge translation in the discourse of professional practice.

Clients and practitioners desire up-to-date, safe and effective healthcare. Knowledge translation, a term used to describe the interchange of knowledge between its producers and users, aims to support this desire. Knowledge, and by extension knowledge translation, is subject to varying perspectives ranging from the objective truth-tested knowledge of empiricism, associated by some with academia, to knowledge in the practitioner realm. This latter knowledge is often based on multiple users' experiences and contexts, thus constructed to meet their needs. The goal of this paper is to compare and contrast knowledge and knowledge translation from empirical and constructivist perspectives. It then relates knowledge translation to professional practice discourse and concludes with thoughts on constructivist knowledge translation strategies, including practitioner-driven strategies derived from practice. For example, knowledge translation can be woven into processes to train/integrate new graduates into the healthcare system, it can be captured in practitioner-driven provision of continuing education, and/or it can be facilitated through practitioner collaboration in research via action research approaches. Regardless of the perspective taken, delivery of up-to-date, safe and effective care requires useful, relevant knowledge available when necessary and applicable to real-life issues as perceived, critically, by the knowledge end-user.