Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25539950›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2014

Scoping review of toolkits as a knowledge translation strategy in health.

Raluca Barac, Sherry Stein, Beth Bruce, Melanie Barwick

Registry-linked trialAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07484958 (Co-designing a Toolkit to Optimise Adherence to Inpatient Stroke Rehabilitation Trial Protocols), which is not on this map. Cited by 52 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT07484958 enrolling by invitationnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Co-designing a Toolkit to Optimise Adherence to Inpatient Stroke Rehabilitation Trial Protocols

TypeobservationalSponsorUniversity of PlymouthRan2026 to 2027Enrolled38ConditionsStroke, Rehabilitation, Co-designArmsCo-designing a stroke rehabilitation toolkit
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

52 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Toolkits for implementing and evaluating digital health: A systematic review of rigor and reporting.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2021
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Raluca BaracHospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada. raluca.barac@sickkids.ca.
Sherry SteinHospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada. sherstein@rogers.com.
Beth BruceDalhousie University, Halifax, Canada. bsbruce@dal.ca.
Melanie BarwickHospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada. melanie.barwick@sickkids.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSignificant resources are invested in the production of research knowledge with the ultimate objective of integrating research evidence into practice. Toolkits are becoming increasingly popular as a knowledge translation (KT) strategy for disseminating health information, to build awareness, inform, and change public and healthcare provider behavior. Toolkits communicate messages aimed at improving health and changing practice to diverse audiences, including healthcare practitioners, patients, community and health organizations, and policy makers. This scoping review explores the use of toolkits in health and healthcare.

methodsUsing Arksey and O'Malley's scoping review framework, health-based toolkits were identified through a search of electronic databases and grey literature for relevant articles and toolkits published between 2004 and 2011. Two reviewers independently extracted data on toolkit topic, format, target audience, content, evidence underlying toolkit content, and evaluation of the toolkit as a KT strategy.

resultsAmong the 253 sources identified, 139 met initial inclusion criteria and 83 toolkits were included in the final sample. Fewer than half of the sources fully described the toolkit content and about 70% made some mention of the evidence underlying the content. Of 83 toolkits, only 31 (37%) had been evaluated at any level (27 toolkits were evaluated overall relative to their purpose or KT goal, and 4 toolkits evaluated the effectiveness of certain elements contained within them).

conclusionsToolkits used to disseminate health knowledge or support practice change often do not specify the evidence base from which they draw, and their effectiveness as a knowledge translation strategy is rarely assessed. To truly inform health and healthcare, toolkits should include comprehensive descriptions of their content, be explicit regarding content that is evidence-based, and include an evaluation of the their effectiveness as a KT strategy, addressing both clinical and implementation outcomes.

Indexed as

Knowledge ManagementBenchmarkingEvidence-Based PracticeHumansInformation DisseminationTranslational Research, Biomedical

Identifiers

PMID25539950
PMCPMC4308831

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.