Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32831095›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2020

Indicators to evaluate organisational knowledge brokers: a scoping review.

Julia Scarlett, Birger C Forsberg, Olivia Biermann, Tanja Kuchenmüller, Ziad El-Khatib

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Health research policy and systems, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

5 authors.

Julia ScarlettDepartment of Global Public Health, Karolinska Institutet, Tomtebodavägen 18a, SE-171 77, Stockholm, Sweden.
Birger C ForsbergDepartment of Global Public Health, Karolinska Institutet, Tomtebodavägen 18a, SE-171 77, Stockholm, Sweden.
Olivia BiermannDepartment of Global Public Health, Karolinska Institutet, Tomtebodavägen 18a, SE-171 77, Stockholm, Sweden.
Tanja KuchenmüllerWorld Health Organization Regional Office for Europe, UN City, Marmorvej 51, DK-2100, Copenhagen Ø, Denmark.
Ziad El-KhatibDepartment of Global Public Health, Karolinska Institutet, Tomtebodavägen 18a, SE-171 77, Stockholm, Sweden. ziad.el-khatib@ki.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0756-7280

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundKnowledge translation (KT) is currently endorsed by global health policy actors as a means to improve outcomes by institutionalising evidence-informed policy-making. Organisational knowledge brokers, comprised of researchers, policy-makers and other stakeholders, are increasingly being used to undertake and promote KT at all levels of health policy-making, though few resources exist to guide the evaluation of these efforts. Using a scoping review methodology, we identified, synthesised and assessed indicators that have been used to evaluate KT infrastructure and capacity-building activities in a health policy context in order to inform the evaluation of organisational knowledge brokers.

methodsA scoping review methodology was used. This included the search of Medline, Global Health and the WHO Library databases for studies regarding the evaluation of KT infrastructure and capacity-building activities between health research and policy, published in English from 2005 to 2016. Data on study characteristics, outputs and outcomes measured, related indicators, mode of verification, duration and/or frequency of collection, indicator methods, KT model, and targeted capacity level were extracted and charted for analysis.

resultsA total of 1073 unique articles were obtained and 176 articles were qualified to be screened in full-text; 32 articles were included in the analysis. Of a total 213 indicators extracted, we identified 174 (174/213; 81.7%) indicators to evaluate the KT infrastructure and capacity-building that have been developed using methods beyond expert opinion. Four validated instruments were identified. The 174 indicators are presented in 8 domains based on an adaptation of the domains of the Lavis et al. framework of linking research to action - general climate, production of research, push efforts, pull efforts, exchange efforts, integrated efforts, evaluation and capacity-building.

conclusionThis review presents a total of 174 method-based indicators to evaluate KT infrastructure and capacity-building. The presented indicators can be used or adapted globally by organisational knowledge brokers and other stakeholders in their monitoring and evaluation work.

Indexed as

Capacity BuildingTranslational Research, BiomedicalHealth PolicyHumansKnowledgePolicy MakingCapacity-buildingIndicatorsKnowledge translationPolicy-makingProgramme evaluation

Identifiers

PMID32831095
PMCPMC7444249

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.