ArticleHealth research policy and systems2019
Applying the Theoretical Domains Framework to understand knowledge broker decisions in selecting evidence for knowledge translation in low- and middle-income countries.
Article in Health research policy and systems, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Beyond knowledge transfer: integrating critical evaluation-knowledge translation framework for decolonising global health.Journal of global health · 2026Article
- Cultural Context and Mental Health: A Kenyan Elite Athlete's Perspective.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Article
- GPs' use of video and telephone consultation: implications for physical activity promotion for older adults. A mixed-methods study.BJGP open · 2025Article
- Assessing the readiness and feasibility to implement a model of care for spine disorders and related disability in Cross Lake, an Indigenous community in northern Manitoba, Canada: a research protocol.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2025Article
- Views and perspectives toward implementing the Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) model of care, and related spine care program by the people in Cross Lake, Northern Manitoba, Canada: a qualitative study using the Theoretical Domain Framework (TDF).Implementation science communications · 2024Article
- Challenges for research uptake for health policymaking and practice in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review.Health research policy and systems · 2023Article
- The impact of knowledge brokering in health sector and the challenges: A review of literature.Journal of public health research · 2023Review
- Implementation Determinants of Knowledge Mobilization within a Quebec Municipality to Improve Universal Accessibility.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Observational
- A knowledge implementation model in health system management based on the PARIHS model.Health research policy and systems · 2022Article
- Knowledge translation following the implementation of a state-wide Paediatric Sepsis Pathway in the emergency department- a multi-centre survey study.BMC health services research · 2021Observational
- Healthcare Professionals Promotion of Physical Activity with Older Adults: A Survey of Knowledge and Routine Practice.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Comparative analysis of country-level enablers, barriers and recommendations to strengthen institutional capacity for evidence uptake in decision-making.Health research policy and systems · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHealth-related organisations disseminate an abundance of clinical and implementation evidence that has potential to improve health outcomes in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), but little is known about what influences a user decision to select particular evidence for action. Knowledge brokers (KBs) play a part as intermediaries supporting evidence-informed health policy and practice by selecting and synthesising evidence for research users, and therefore understanding the basis for KB decisions, can help inform knowledge translation strategies. The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), a synthesis of psychological theories, was selected as a promising analysis approach because of its widespread use in identifying influences on decisions to act on evidence-based healthcare guidelines. This study explored its application in the context of KB decisions regarding evidence for use in LMICs.
methodsThe study analysed data collected from participants of a 2015 global maternal and newborn health conference in Mexico. A total of 324 conference participants from 56 countries completed an online survey and 20 from 15 countries were interviewed about evidence use and sharing after the conference. TDF domains and constructs were retrospectively applied and adapted during coding of qualitative data to enhance understanding of the KB decision process in selecting evidence for action.
resultsApplication of the TDF involved challenges related to overlapping constructs, retrospective use, and complexities of global health settings and relevant knowledge. Codes needed to be added or adapted to account for how KBs' internal reflections on external factors influenced their actions in selecting evidence to share and use, and the decisions they made during the process. Four themes of the rationale for changing the TDF were identified during analysis, namely Influences from Beyond the Organisation, Knowledge Selection as a Process, Access and Packaging of Knowledge, and Fit for Use.
conclusionsTheories of individual behaviour, such as those in the TDF, can enhance understanding of the decisions made by actors such as KBs along dissemination and knowledge translation pathways. Understanding how KBs reflect on evidence and interact with their environment has the potential for improving global dissemination efforts and LMIC-to-LMIC exchange of implementation evidence.
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.