Article type
Abstract
Background
Identifying and synthesizing the definitions and characteristics of knowledge translation platforms (KTPs), and the research methods used for evaluating them, can help advance understandings of KTPs and the value of such intermediary organizations in the quest for evidence-informed decision-making.
Methods
This scoping review included studies that discussed (1) a definition, description, and/or framework of KTPs (including those who do not self-identify as KTPs) and (2) methods for evaluating KTPs. Searches were conducted in PubMed, CINAHL, and Scopus, without any date, language, or geographical restrictions. The analysis provided a descriptive quantitative overview of the included studies and a narrative qualitative (thematic) synthesis, including recommendations for enhancing an existing KTP framework.
Results
We included 70 studies, most being empirical (37), qualitative (32), and conducted in high-income countries (44), involving a variety of decision-makers (eg, researchers, policymakers, practitioners, and civil society groups). Definitions of KTPs were varied, but most characteristics were in line with the KTP framework by Valmeekanathan et al (2021), which captured 3 KTP functions: capacity building, knowledge exchange, and dialogues and additional activities. Additional KTP functions identified in the scoping review related to monitoring and evaluation, sustainability, and scalability. Of the 48 studies that evaluated KTP functions, 27 were qualitative, 18 mixed, and 3 quantitative. Interviews were the most used data collection method (34), with thematic analysis as the predominant analysis method (22).
Insufficient funding was identified as the primary challenge for KTPs, impacting personnel costs and KT activities, ultimately affecting sustainability. KTPs located in universities or governments, with champions, showed greater longevity. Links to high-level government structures and endorsement by decision-makers were key enablers of a successful KTP.
Conclusion
There is a need to (1) examine how/why activities and processes facilitated by a KTP work or not; (2) identify indicators of an effective and efficient KTP; (3) describe the personal factors of KTP stakeholders (eg, their ability to work in an equitable and collaborative manner and their understanding of the political and value issues related to decision-making); and (4) explore the context in which a KTP occurs, to show potential differences in influence and impact on decision-making.
Identifying and synthesizing the definitions and characteristics of knowledge translation platforms (KTPs), and the research methods used for evaluating them, can help advance understandings of KTPs and the value of such intermediary organizations in the quest for evidence-informed decision-making.
Methods
This scoping review included studies that discussed (1) a definition, description, and/or framework of KTPs (including those who do not self-identify as KTPs) and (2) methods for evaluating KTPs. Searches were conducted in PubMed, CINAHL, and Scopus, without any date, language, or geographical restrictions. The analysis provided a descriptive quantitative overview of the included studies and a narrative qualitative (thematic) synthesis, including recommendations for enhancing an existing KTP framework.
Results
We included 70 studies, most being empirical (37), qualitative (32), and conducted in high-income countries (44), involving a variety of decision-makers (eg, researchers, policymakers, practitioners, and civil society groups). Definitions of KTPs were varied, but most characteristics were in line with the KTP framework by Valmeekanathan et al (2021), which captured 3 KTP functions: capacity building, knowledge exchange, and dialogues and additional activities. Additional KTP functions identified in the scoping review related to monitoring and evaluation, sustainability, and scalability. Of the 48 studies that evaluated KTP functions, 27 were qualitative, 18 mixed, and 3 quantitative. Interviews were the most used data collection method (34), with thematic analysis as the predominant analysis method (22).
Insufficient funding was identified as the primary challenge for KTPs, impacting personnel costs and KT activities, ultimately affecting sustainability. KTPs located in universities or governments, with champions, showed greater longevity. Links to high-level government structures and endorsement by decision-makers were key enablers of a successful KTP.
Conclusion
There is a need to (1) examine how/why activities and processes facilitated by a KTP work or not; (2) identify indicators of an effective and efficient KTP; (3) describe the personal factors of KTP stakeholders (eg, their ability to work in an equitable and collaborative manner and their understanding of the political and value issues related to decision-making); and (4) explore the context in which a KTP occurs, to show potential differences in influence and impact on decision-making.