ArticleImplementation science : IS2026
Evaluating the implementation of integrated knowledge translation in a multi-country research consortium in Sub-Saharan Africa - a mixed methods comparative case study.
Article in Implementation science : IS, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIntegrated knowledge translation (IKT) is an approach facilitating collaboration between researchers and decision-makers towards evidence-informed decision-making. Increasingly evaluated in various contexts, less is known about the implementation process of IKT, including in low- and middle-income countries. The Collaboration for Evidence-based Healthcare and Public Health in Africa (CEBHA+) developed, implemented and evaluated an IKT approach across five countries. Here, we examined how the IKT approach was implemented in the African-German multi-country research consortium, investigating project-level context; implementation process, strategy, and outcomes; and exploring intervention core components.
methodsThis process evaluation used a mixed-methods comparative case study design. Following a previously published protocol, the main authors of this paper surveyed and interviewed African CEBHA+ researchers and their partners from policy and practice in 2020/2021 and 2022/2023 and identified relevant IKT-related documents. We drew on our programme theory and implementation science frameworks to undertake qualitative content analysis of interview data and documents. Data was analysed within sites, integrated with descriptively analysed quantitative survey data, and subsequently compared across sites.
resultsWe enrolled 36 researchers and 19 decision-makers and analysed 92 IKT-related documents. IKT was implemented at the five sites in Ethiopia, Malawi, Rwanda, South Africa, and Uganda. In our cross-site analysis of fidelity and adaptability of IKT, we identified three core components of the IKT approach: (i) continuous tailored engagement between researchers and decision-makers, (ii) researchers' commitment to research impact, and (iii) linking to existing KT routines. The context analysis revealed that IKT implementation was facilitated by local KT structures, pre-existing knowledge translation routines and relationships with decision-makers, senior leadership motivation, and funder support including a dedicated budget for IKT activities. Feasibility of IKT implementation was reduced by administrative challenges, overall project complexity, and conflicting priorities.
conclusionThis research leveraged a unique opportunity to study a systematic IKT approach implemented across sites in five African countries in the context of a large international research consortium. The findings can inform IKT design and implementation in other multi-site and multi-country projects. Particularly, the identified core components can guide adaptation and refinement of IKT in contextually diverse settings, including low- and middle- income countries.
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.