ArticleHealth research policy and systems2024
A scoping review of theories, models and frameworks used or proposed to evaluate knowledge mobilization strategies.
Article in Health research policy and systems, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficacy of a Large Language Model Data Extraction System in Evidence Reviews for Emerging Infectious Diseases: A Randomized Crossover Trial.Open forum infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Establishment, Implementation, and Impacts of the Observatory on Student Mental Health in Higher Education in Quebec, Canada: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Research Program.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Impacts of a Knowledge Mobilization Campaign for Carer-Inclusive Workplace Tools in Canada: Knowledge-to-Action Design Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Mapping death literacy in the East of England: A cross-sectional survey with qualitative insights to inform public health strategy.Palliative care and social practice · 2026Article
- Article
- Implementation and evaluation of a knowledge translation process to optimize the adoption of harm reduction in cannabis use by practitioners working with youth in Quebec: a mixed-methods study.Health research policy and systems · 2025Article
- Barriers and facilitators to the institutionalization and sustainability of knowledge translation platforms in the eastern Mediterranean: a scoping review.Health research policy and systems · 2025Article
- Mixed-methods study on professionals' attitudes toward harm reduction in cannabis use and the development of a knowledge translation plan.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Ten simple rules for getting started with knowledge mobilization.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- Involving Knowledge Users in Health Services Research: Collective Reflections and Learning From a National Evaluation of Recurrent Miscarriage Services.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Article
- Pediatric Oncology Knowledge Mobilization in Canada: A Environmental Scan.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEvaluating knowledge mobilization strategies (KMb) presents challenges for organizations seeking to understand their impact to improve KMb effectiveness. Moreover, the large number of theories, models, and frameworks (TMFs) available can be confusing for users. Therefore, the purpose of this scoping review was to identify and describe the characteristics of TMFs that have been used or proposed in the literature to evaluate KMb strategies.
methodsA scoping review methodology was used. Articles were identified through searches in electronic databases, previous reviews and reference lists of included articles. Titles, abstracts and full texts were screened in duplicate. Data were charted using a piloted data charting form. Data extracted included study characteristics, KMb characteristics, and TMFs used or proposed for KMb evaluation. An adapted version of Nilsen (Implement Sci 10:53, 2015) taxonomy and the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) taxonomy (Powell et al. in Implement Sci 10:21, 2015) guided data synthesis.
resultsOf the 4763 search results, 505 were retrieved, and 88 articles were eligible for review. These consisted of 40 theoretical articles (45.5%), 44 empirical studies (50.0%) and four protocols (4.5%). The majority were published after 2010 (n = 70, 79.5%) and were health related (n = 71, 80.7%). Half of the studied KMb strategies were implemented in only four countries: Canada, Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom (n = 42, 47.7%). One-third used existing TMFs (n = 28, 31.8%). According to the adapted Nilsen taxonomy, process models (n = 34, 38.6%) and evaluation frameworks (n = 28, 31.8%) were the two most frequent types of TMFs used or proposed to evaluate KMb. According to the ERIC taxonomy, activities to "train and educate stakeholders" (n = 46, 52.3%) were the most common, followed by activities to "develop stakeholder interrelationships" (n = 23, 26.1%). Analysis of the TMFs identified revealed relevant factors of interest for the evaluation of KMb strategies, classified into four dimensions: context, process, effects and impacts.
conclusionsThis scoping review provides an overview of the many KMb TMFs used or proposed. The results provide insight into potential dimensions and components to be considered when assessing KMb strategies.
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.