ArticleImplementation science : IS2018
Engaging policy-makers, health system managers, and policy analysts in the knowledge synthesis process: a scoping review.
Article in Implementation science : IS, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 53 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
53 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 99 citations in OpenAlex.
- Barriers and facilitators to knowledge translation at the science-policy interface during the COVID-19 pandemic public health emergency: a rapid review and theoretical analysis to inform development of a logic model.BMC public health · 2026Pooled it
- Paper 2: Performing rapid reviews.Systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Gentrification, policing, and potential pathways to health: A scoping review.Social science & medicine (1982) · 2026Article
- Article
- Limited Australian clinical guidelines for pain assessment in hospitalized older adults with cognitive impairment: implications for safe and quality care.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Methods of Engaging Interest-Holders in Healthcare Evidence Syntheses: A Scoping Review.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2026Review
- Article
- Using Psychologically Informed Community-Based Participatory Research to Create Culturally Relevant Informal STEM Experiences.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- How does integrated knowledge translation work? A realist review.Health research policy and systems · 2025Review
- Involving Physiotherapists in the Conduct of Research: A Mixed Methods Study of Physiotherapist Experiences, Perceptions, and Clinical Practice in a Research Project Using a Standardized Clinical Measure of Standing Balance.Physiotherapy Canada. Physiotherapie Canada · 2025Article
- A Scoping Review of Heteronormativity in Healthcare and Its Implications on the Health and Well-Being of LGBTIQ+ Persons in Africa.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
- Incivility experiences of racially minoritised hospital staff, consequences for them and implications for patient care: An international scoping review.Sociology of health & illness · 2025Article
- Strategies for involving patients and the public in scaling initiatives in health and social services: A scoping review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Article
- Evaluation of an integrated knowledge translation approach used for updating the Cochrane Review of Patient Decision Aids: a pre-post mixed methods study.Research involvement and engagement · 2024Article
- Rapid Reviews Methods Series: Involving patient and public partners, healthcare providers and policymakers as knowledge users.BMJ evidence-based medicine · 2024Article
- Decision-maker roles in healthcare quality improvement projects: a scoping review.BMJ open quality · 2024Article
- Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction Health Insurance Coverage: If, How, and When? An Integrated Knowledge Translation (iKT) Delphi Key Informant Analysis.Mindfulness · 2024Article
- Clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: an assessment based on the AGREE II, AGREE-REX tools and the RIGHT checklist.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Evidence-informed stakeholder consultations to promote rights-based approaches for children with disabilities.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIt is unclear how to engage a wide range of knowledge users in research. We aimed to map the evidence on engaging knowledge users with an emphasis on policy-makers, health system managers, and policy analysts in the knowledge synthesis process through a scoping review.
methodsWe used the Joanna Briggs Institute guidance for scoping reviews. Nine electronic databases (e.g., MEDLINE), two grey literature sources (e.g., OpenSIGLE), and reference lists of relevant systematic reviews were searched from 1996 to August 2016. We included any type of study describing strategies, barriers and facilitators, or assessing the impact of engaging policy-makers, health system managers, and policy analysts in the knowledge synthesis process. Screening and data abstraction were conducted by two reviewers independently with a third reviewer resolving discrepancies. Frequency and thematic analyses were conducted.
resultsAfter screening 8395 titles and abstracts followed by 394 full-texts, 84 unique documents and 7 companion reports fulfilled our eligibility criteria. All 84 documents were published in the last 10 years, and half were prepared in North America. The most common type of knowledge synthesis with knowledge user engagement was a systematic review (36%). The knowledge synthesis most commonly addressed an issue at the level of national healthcare system (48%) and focused on health services delivery (17%) in high-income countries (86%). Policy-makers were the most common (64%) knowledge users, followed by healthcare professionals (49%) and government agencies as well as patients and caregivers (34%). Knowledge users were engaged in conceptualization and design (49%), literature search and data collection (52%), data synthesis and interpretation (71%), and knowledge dissemination and application (44%). Knowledge users were most commonly engaged as key informants through meetings and workshops as well as surveys, focus groups, and interviews either in-person or by telephone and emails. Knowledge user content expertise/awareness was a common facilitator (18%), while lack of time or opportunity to participate was a common barrier (12%).
conclusionsKnowledge users were most commonly engaged during the data synthesis and interpretation phases of the knowledge synthesis conduct. Researchers should document and evaluate knowledge user engagement in knowledge synthesis. REGISTRATION DETAILS: Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/4dy53/ ).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.