ArticleBMJ open quality2025
Concept analysis of health research translation nomenclature.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Knowledge mobilization planning guides: a pragmatic synthesis and content analysis.Implementation science communications · 2026Pooled it
- Advancing knowledge translation processes in motor rehabilitation for children with cerebral palsy and developmental coordination disorder: insights from a scoping review.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Cross-cultural adaptation of an implementation science glossary into simplified Chinese: study protocol.Frontiers in health services · 2026Article
- Taking stock: understanding key processes in the public health programs-stages of research and evaluation framework.Health promotion international · 2025Article
- How does integrated knowledge translation work? A realist review.Health research policy and systems · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTranslating health research into clinical practice is a complex process aimed at enhancing healthcare quality and patient outcomes. The terminology surrounding this process is varied and often used interchangeably, leading to minimal consensus on the activities encompassed by each term.
objectivesThis study aims to examine existing taxonomies and websites for operational definitions related to health research translation, culminating in a comprehensive synopsis of terms specific to this field.
designIn 2019, a literature search was conducted using databases such as PubMed and CINAHL, along with relevant government and non-governmental organisation (NGO) websites, including grey literature. The search focused on English-language publications defining health research translation from 2000 onward and was updated in 2023. One author conducted the search, employing a mix of free-text and database-specific terms. Two authors independently evaluated the results for inclusion. Relevant data were extracted to aid in sorting and prioritising terminology based on frequency. A concept analysis approach, developed by Foley and Davis and informed by Rodgers' seven phases, was used to map the nomenclature.
resultsA total of 51 papers were analysed, revealing that the most frequently used terms for health research translation were knowledge translation (KT), implementation and translational research. Both evidence-based healthcare and KT describe the process of integrating evidence into practice, positioning them as analogous. Two major domains were identified: practice and science, with practice-related language further categorised into people-focused, process-focused and outcome-focused.
conclusionsThis paper presents a conceptual nomenclature map that serves as a foundation for developing a consensus-driven ontology for health research translation. The framework highlights how language can be categorised into common domains, fostering meaningful communication across diverse groups and entities.
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.