A scoping review of full-spectrum knowledge translation theories, models, and frameworks
| dc.contributor.author | Esmail, Rosmin | |
| dc.contributor.author | Hanson, Heather M | |
| dc.contributor.author | Holroyd-Leduc, Jayna | |
| dc.contributor.author | Brown, Sage | |
| dc.contributor.author | Strifler, Lisa | |
| dc.contributor.author | Straus, Sharon E | |
| dc.contributor.author | Niven, Daniel J | |
| dc.contributor.author | Clement, Fiona M | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2020-02-16T01:03:15Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2020-02-16T01:03:15Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2020-02-14 | |
| dc.date.updated | 2020-02-16T01:03:15Z | |
| dc.description.abstract | Abstract Background Application of knowledge translation (KT) theories, models, and frameworks (TMFs) is one method for successfully incorporating evidence into clinical care. However, there are multiple KT TMFs and little guidance on which to select. This study sought to identify and describe available full-spectrum KT TMFs to subsequently guide users. Methods A scoping review was completed. Articles were identified through searches within electronic databases, previous reviews, grey literature, and consultation with KT experts. Search terms included combinations of KT terms and theory-related terms. Included citations had to describe full-spectrum KT TMFs that had been applied or tested. Titles/abstracts and full-text articles were screened independently by two investigators. Each KT TMF was described by its characteristics including name, context, key components, how it was used, primary target audience, levels of use, and study outcomes. Each KT TMF was also categorized into theoretical approaches as process models, determinant frameworks, classic theories, implementation theories, and evaluation frameworks. Within each category, KT TMFs were compared and contrasted to identify similarities and unique characteristics. Results Electronic searches yielded 7160 citations. Additional citations were identified from previous reviews (n = 41) and bibliographies of included full-text articles (n = 6). Thirty-six citations describing 36 full-spectrum were identified. In 24 KT TMFs, the primary target audience was multi-level including patients/public, professionals, organizational, and financial/regulatory. The majority of the KT TMFs were used within public health, followed by research (organizational, translation, health), or in multiple contexts. Twenty-six could be used at the individual, organization, or policy levels, five at the individual/organization levels, three at the individual level only, and two at the organizational/policy level. Categorization of the KT TMFs resulted in 18 process models, eight classic theories, three determinant frameworks, three evaluation frameworks, and four that fit more than one category. There were no KT TMFs that fit the implementation theory category. Within each category, similarities and unique characteristics emerged through comparison. Conclusions A systematic compilation of existing full-spectrum KT TMFs, categorization into different approaches, and comparison has been provided in a user-friendly way. This list provides options for users to select from when designing KT projects and interventions. Trial registration A protocol outlining the methodology of this scoping review was developed and registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018088564). | |
| dc.identifier.citation | Implementation Science. 2020 Feb 14;15(1):11 | |
| dc.identifier.doi | https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-020-0964-5 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/1880/111655 | |
| dc.language.rfc3066 | en | |
| dc.rights.holder | The Author(s). | |
| dc.title | A scoping review of full-spectrum knowledge translation theories, models, and frameworks | |
| dc.type | Journal Article |