Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32059738›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2020

A scoping review of full-spectrum knowledge translation theories, models, and frameworks.

Rosmin Esmail, Heather M Hanson, Jayna Holroyd-Leduc, Sage Brown, Lisa Strifler, Sharon E Straus, Daniel J Niven, Fiona M Clement

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science : IS, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 88 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
88citing 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.

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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Rosmin EsmailDepartment of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, 3D14A Teaching and Wellness Building, 3280 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta, T2N 4Z6, Canada.
Heather M HansonDepartment of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, 3D14A Teaching and Wellness Building, 3280 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta, T2N 4Z6, Canada.
Jayna Holroyd-LeducDepartment of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, 3D14A Teaching and Wellness Building, 3280 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta, T2N 4Z6, Canada.
Sage BrownDepartment of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, 3D14A Teaching and Wellness Building, 3280 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta, T2N 4Z6, Canada.
Lisa StriflerLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Sharon E StrausLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Daniel J NivenDepartment of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, 3D14A Teaching and Wellness Building, 3280 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta, T2N 4Z6, Canada.
Fiona M ClementDepartment of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, 3D14A Teaching and Wellness Building, 3280 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta, T2N 4Z6, Canada. fclement@ucalgary.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundApplication of knowledge translation (KT) theories, models, and frameworks (TMFs) is one method for successfully incorporating evidence into clinical care. However, there are multiple KT TMFs and little guidance on which to select. This study sought to identify and describe available full-spectrum KT TMFs to subsequently guide users.

methodsA scoping review was completed. Articles were identified through searches within electronic databases, previous reviews, grey literature, and consultation with KT experts. Search terms included combinations of KT terms and theory-related terms. Included citations had to describe full-spectrum KT TMFs that had been applied or tested. Titles/abstracts and full-text articles were screened independently by two investigators. Each KT TMF was described by its characteristics including name, context, key components, how it was used, primary target audience, levels of use, and study outcomes. Each KT TMF was also categorized into theoretical approaches as process models, determinant frameworks, classic theories, implementation theories, and evaluation frameworks. Within each category, KT TMFs were compared and contrasted to identify similarities and unique characteristics.

resultsElectronic searches yielded 7160 citations. Additional citations were identified from previous reviews (n = 41) and bibliographies of included full-text articles (n = 6). Thirty-six citations describing 36 full-spectrum were identified. In 24 KT TMFs, the primary target audience was multi-level including patients/public, professionals, organizational, and financial/regulatory. The majority of the KT TMFs were used within public health, followed by research (organizational, translation, health), or in multiple contexts. Twenty-six could be used at the individual, organization, or policy levels, five at the individual/organization levels, three at the individual level only, and two at the organizational/policy level. Categorization of the KT TMFs resulted in 18 process models, eight classic theories, three determinant frameworks, three evaluation frameworks, and four that fit more than one category. There were no KT TMFs that fit the implementation theory category. Within each category, similarities and unique characteristics emerged through comparison.

conclusionsA systematic compilation of existing full-spectrum KT TMFs, categorization into different approaches, and comparison has been provided in a user-friendly way. This list provides options for users to select from when designing KT projects and interventions.

trial registrationA protocol outlining the methodology of this scoping review was developed and registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018088564).

Indexed as

Models, OrganizationalDelivery of Health CareHumansResearch DesignTranslational Research, BiomedicalDiffusionDisseminationFrameworksImplementationKnowledge translationModelsResearch utilizationTheories

Identifiers

PMID32059738
PMCPMC7023795

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.