ArticleHRB open research2026
How knowledge translation interventions involving health policy decision makers are evaluated: a scoping review protocol.
Article in HRB open research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Knowledge translation (KT) interventions support the use of research evidence in health policymaking but vary substantially in form, complexity and evaluation. There is no comprehensive synthesis of how KT interventions involving health policy decision makers are evaluated across intervention types and policy contexts. Objectives: This scoping review aims to map and describe how KT interventions involving health policy decision makers are evaluated. It will identify evaluation approaches, designs and methods; describe theories, frameworks, programme logics and rationales informing evaluation choices; examine how evaluation characteristics vary by intervention type, complexity, intended outcomes, policy context and evaluation use; and identify gaps in evaluative coverage. Methods: This review will be conducted in accordance with established scoping review guidance and reported using PRISMA-ScR. Eligibility will be structured using the Population-Concept-Context framework. Studies published in English from 2000 onwards that empirically evaluate a KT intervention involving or directed towards health policy decision makers will be eligible. Evaluation characteristics will be examined using descriptive numerical mapping, Lemire's Evaluation Metro Map as an organising and communication tool, and structured qualitative content analysis. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool will provide supplementary methodological context. The review will characterise evaluation practice rather than estimate intervention effectiveness or rank studies. Dissemination: Findings will be published in an open-access peer-reviewed journal and disseminated through conference presentations and plain-language summaries for academic and policy audiences.
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.