Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26988000›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2016

Integrated knowledge translation (IKT) in health care: a scoping review.

Anna R Gagliardi, Whitney Berta, Anita Kothari, Jennifer Boyko, Robin Urquhart

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science : IS, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 346 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
346citing papers in PubMed, 5 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

346 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. 'It reshaped how I will do research': A qualitative exploration of team members' experiences with youth and family engagement in a randomized controlled trial.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021
    Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Better Healthcare Together: Co-Designing a Framework for Health Service Co-Design.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

286 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Anna R GagliardiUniversity Health Network, Toronto, Canada. anna.gagliardi@uhnresearch.ca.
Whitney BertaUniversity of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Anita KothariUniversity of Western Ontario, London, Canada.
Jennifer BoykoUniversity of Western Ontario, London, Canada.
Robin UrquhartDalhousie University, Halifax, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIntegrated knowledge translation (IKT) refers to collaboration between researchers and decision-makers. While advocated as an approach for enhancing the relevance and use of research, IKT is challenging and inconsistently applied. This study sought to inform future IKT practice and research by synthesizing studies that empirically evaluated IKT and identifying knowledge gaps.

methodsWe performed a scoping review. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from 2005 to 2014 for English language studies that evaluated IKT interventions involving researchers and organizational or policy-level decision-makers. Data were extracted on study characteristics, IKT intervention (theory, content, mode, duration, frequency, personnel, participants, timing from initiation, initiator, source of funding, decision-maker involvement), and enablers, barriers, and outcomes reported by studies. We performed content analysis and reported summary statistics.

resultsThirteen studies were eligible after screening 14,754 titles and reviewing 106 full-text studies. Details about IKT activities were poorly reported, and none were formally based on theory. Studies varied in the number and type of interactions between researchers and decision-makers; meetings were the most common format. All studies reported barriers and facilitators. Studies reported a range of positive and sub-optimal outcomes. Outcomes did not appear to be associated with initiator of the partnership, dedicated funding, partnership maturity, nature of decision-maker involvement, presence or absence of enablers or barriers, or the number of different IKT activities.

conclusionsThe IKT strategies that achieve beneficial outcomes remain unknown. We generated a summary of IKT approaches, enablers, barriers, conditions, and outcomes that can serve as the basis for a future review or for planning ongoing primary research. Future research can contribute to three identified knowledge gaps by examining (1) how different IKT strategies influence outcomes, (2) the relationship between the logic or theory underlying IKT interventions and beneficial outcomes, and (3) when and how decision-makers should be involved in the research process. Future IKT initiatives should more systematically plan and document their design and implementation, and evaluations should report the findings with sufficient detail to reveal how IKT was associated with outcomes.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareDiffusion of InnovationDecision MakingHealth PlanningHealth ServicesHumansTranslational Research, BiomedicalDecision-makingHealth system planningIntegrated knowledge translationScoping review

Identifiers

PMID26988000
PMCPMC4797171

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.