Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29793541›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2018

Translating research into action: an international study of the role of research funders.

Robert K D McLean, Ian D Graham, Jacqueline M Tetroe, Jimmy A Volmink

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health research policy and systems, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. So what? Elevating the impact of implementation science.Implementation science communications · 2025
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. How and why funders support engaged research.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  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.

Robert K D McLeanFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Tygerberg, South Africa. rmclean@idrc.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8084-4817
Ian D GrahamSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Jacqueline M TetroeRetired health researcher, Ottawa, Canada.
Jimmy A VolminkFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Tygerberg, South Africa.

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research 143237
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIt is widely accepted that research can lead to improved health outcomes. However, translating research into meaningful impacts in peoples' lives requires actions that stretch well beyond those traditionally associated with knowledge creation. The research reported in this manuscript provides an international review of health research funders' efforts to encourage this process of research uptake, application and scaling, often referred to as knowledge translation.

methodsWe conducted web-site review, document review and key informant interviews to investigate knowledge translation at 26 research funding agencies. The sample comprises the regions of Australia, Europe and North America, and a diverse range of funder types, including biomedical, clinical, multi-health domain, philanthropic, public and private organisations. The data builds on a 2008 study by the authors with the same international sample, which permitted longitudinal trend analysis.

resultsKnowledge translation is an objective of growing significance for funders across each region studied. However, there is no clear international consensus or standard on how funders might support knowledge translation. We found that approaches and mechanisms vary across region and funder type. Strategically tailored funding opportunities (grants) are the most prevalent modality of support. The most common funder-driven strategy for knowledge translation within these grants is the linking of researchers to research users. Funders could not to provide empirical evidence to support the majority of the knowledge translation activities they encourage or undertake.

conclusionsKnowledge translation at a research funder relies on context. Accordingly, we suggest that the diversity of approaches uncovered in our research is fitting. We argue that evaluation of funding agency efforts to promote and/or support knowledge translation should be prioritised and actioned. It is paradoxical that funders' efforts to get evidence into practice are not themselves evidence based.

Indexed as

Financing, OrganizedHealth Services ResearchOrganizationsResearch Support as TopicStakeholder ParticipationTranslational Research, BiomedicalAustraliaEuropeHumansNorth AmericaIntegrated knowledge translationKnowledge mobilisationKnowledge translationResearch evaluationResearch fundingResearch impactResearch use

Identifiers

PMID29793541
PMCPMC5968540

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.