knowledge transfer literature review

• Search Menu

Sign in through your institution

• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Acquisition
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Media
• Music and Religion
• Music and Culture
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Politics
• Law and Society
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Medical Ethics
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Security
• Computer Games
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Ethics
• Business Strategy
• Business History
• Business and Technology
• Business and Government
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic History
• Economic Systems
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• Ethnic Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Theory
• Politics and Law
• Politics of Development
• Public Policy
• Public Administration
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

2 What We Do and Do Not Know: A Review of the Knowledge Transfer Literature

• Published: April 2023
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

Attempts to transfer knowledge across organizational borders vary greatly in terms of processes and outcomes. There are both successes and failures. This chapter reviews a broad selection of literature to shed light on what we know from research about the expressions of and causes of such variations. The chapter identifies and reviews literature from seven research traditions that study the influence on knowledge processes and outcomes from (1) formal organizational structure, (2) absorptive capacity, (3) social networks, (4) geographical distance, (5) cultural distance, (6) institutional distance, and (7) characteristics of the transferred knowledge. The review sums up consistent findings as well as mixed and inconsistent findings. It also identifies white spots in our understanding of why border crossing knowledge transfers vary in processes and outcomes.

Signed in as

Institutional accounts.

• Google Scholar Indexing
• GoogleCrawler [DO NOT DELETE]

Personal account

• Sign in with email/username & password
• Get email alerts
• Save searches
• Purchase content
• Activate your purchase/trial code
• Add your ORCID iD

Institutional access

Sign in with a library card.

• Sign in with username/password
• Recommend to your librarian
• Institutional account management
• Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.

• Click Sign in through your institution.
• Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
• When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
• Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:

• Click Sign in through society site.
• When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

• View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
• View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Our books are available by subscription or purchase to libraries and institutions.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Rights and permissions
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

To read this content please select one of the options below:

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes, a systematic review of the antecedents of knowledge transfer: an actant-object view.

European Business Review

ISSN : 0955-534X

Article publication date: 14 October 2019

While numerous studies have studied knowledge transfer (KT) and endeavored to address factors influencing KT, little effort has been made to integrate the findings of prior studies. This paper aims to classify the literature on KT through a detailed exploration of different perspectives of KT inter and intra organizations.

Design/methodology/approach

Using actor–network theory (ANT) as the baseline, we conducted a systematic review of KT research to summarize prior KT studies and classify the influential factors on KT. The review covered 115 empirical articles published between 1987 and 2017.

Drawing on the review and ANT guidelines, the authors proposed a conceptual model to categorize KT constitutes into objects including those related to (1) knowledge, (2) knowledge exchange and (3) technology, as well as actants including those related to (4) organization, (5) team/business unit and (6) knowledge sender/receiver.

Research limitations/implications

Adopting a holistic synthesized approach based on ANT, this research puts forward a valid theoretical foundation on further understanding of KT and its antecedents. Indeed, this paper investigates KT inter and intra organizations to recognize and locate the key antecedents of KT, which is of substantial applicability in today’s knowledge-driven economy.

Practical implications

The findings advance managers and practitioners’ understanding of the important role of actants and objects and their interplay in KT practices.

Originality/value

While most studies on KT have a narrow focus, this research contributes to holistic understanding of motivational, behavioral, technological and organizational issues related to KT. It also offers a thorough and context-free literature review on KT, which synthesizes the findings of prior studies on KT.

• Knowledge transfer
• Actor network theory (ANT)
• Antecedents
• Knowledge exchange
• Systematic review

Shahbaznezhad, H. , Rashidirad, M. and Vaghefi, I. (2019), "A systematic review of the antecedents of knowledge transfer: an actant-object view", European Business Review , Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 970-995. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-07-2018-0133

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2019, Emerald Publishing Limited

Related articles

We’re listening — tell us what you think, something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Wiley Open Access Collection

Language: English | Chinese

Key components of knowledge transfer and exchange in health services research: Findings from a systematic scoping review

卫生服务研究中知识传递和交流的关键组分:系统性范围综述得来的调查结果, lucia prihodova.

1 UCD School of Psychology, University College Dublin, Dublin Ireland

2 Palliative Care Research Network, All Ireland Institute for Hospice and Palliative Care, Dublin Ireland

Suzanne Guerin

3 UCD Centre for Disability Studies, University College Dublin, Dublin Ireland

Conall Tunney

W. george kernohan.

4 Institute of Nursing and Health Research, Ulster University, Belfast Northern Ireland

Associated Data

To identify the key common components of knowledge transfer and exchange in existing models to facilitate practice developments in health services research.

There are over 60 models of knowledge transfer and exchange designed for various areas of health care. Many of them remain untested and lack guidelines for scaling‐up of successful implementation of research findings and of proven models ensuring that patients have access to optimal health care, guided by current research.

A scoping review was conducted in line with PRISMA guidelines. Key components of knowledge transfer and exchange were identified using thematic analysis and frequency counts.

Data Sources

Six electronic databases were searched for papers published before January 2015 containing four key terms/variants: knowledge, transfer, framework, health care.

Review Methods

Double screening, extraction and coding of the data using thematic analysis were employed to ensure rigour. As further validation stakeholders’ consultation of the findings was performed to ensure accessibility.

Of the 4,288 abstracts, 294 full‐text articles were screened, with 79 articles analysed. Six key components emerged: knowledge transfer and exchange message, Stakeholders and Process components often appeared together, while from two contextual components Inner Context and the wider Social, Cultural and Economic Context, with the wider context less frequently considered. Finally, there was little consideration of the Evaluation of knowledge transfer and exchange activities. In addition, specific operational elements of each component were identified.

Conclusions

The six components offer the basis for knowledge transfer and exchange activities, enabling researchers to more effectively share their work. Further research exploring the potential contribution of the interactions of the components is recommended.

目的

的在于确定已有模式中知识传递和交流的关键通用组分,以促进卫生服务研究的实践发展。

背景为各种医疗保健领域设计了60多种知识转移和交流模式。当中许多吧没有进行测试,也没有指导方针来既扩大研究结果的成功实施,又没有指导方针来扩大已证模型的成功实施,以便于确保患者在当前研究的指导下获得最佳的医疗保健。

设计

根据PRISMA指南进行了范围综述。采用了主题分析和频率计数来确定知识传递和交流的关键组分。

数据来源

在6个电子数据库中搜索了2015年1月之前发表的论文,其中包含四个关键术语/变体:知识、传递、框架、医疗保健。

综述方法

采用了主题分析对数据进行双重筛选,提取和编码,以便确保严谨性。随着进一步确认,利益相关者对调查结果进行了协商,以确保可访问性。

结果

在4288篇摘要中,筛选了294篇全文文章,分析了79篇文章。出现了6个关键组分:知识传递和交流信息、利益相关者和流程组件经常一起出现、而出现于两个上下文组件——内部语境和更广阔的社会,文化和经济语境、不太经常考虑更广阔的语境。最后,很少考虑对知识传递和交流活动的评估。此外,还确定了每个组分的具体操作要素。

结论

这六个组分为知识传递和交流活动提供了基础,使研究人员能够更有效地共享其工作。建议进一步研究探讨组件交互的潜在贡献。

Why is this research or review needed?

• There is lack of studies that inform the application of knowledge transfer and exchange strategies across various healthcare settings to enable evidence‐based practice.
• Analysis and synthesis of existing knowledge transfer and exchange frameworks would identify their commonalities and core concepts.

What are the key findings?

• Six key components emerged from analysis of 79 articles; the knowledge transfer and exchange Message, Stakeholders and Process, Inner Context, Social, Cultural and Economic Context and Evaluation. Their prevalence varied, especially in relation to the Evaluation of KTE activities.
• In addition, specific operational elements of each key component were identified.

How should the findings be used to influence policy/practice/research/education?

• The components and the specific operational elements offer guidance for knowledge transfer and exchange activities in applied setting and can serve as a framework within which to evaluate their impact.

1. INTRODUCTION

While the ultimate aim of health research is to inform practice and policy, research findings can only change population health outcomes if adopted and embedded by healthcare systems, organizations and clinicians (Grimshaw, Ward, & Eccles, 2006 ). Therefore, it is important to explore the most effective ways of implementing existing evidence into practice (Kutner 2011 ). Applying research findings to practice is especially difficult due to the broad, holistic and elements of complex interventions offered in various practice settings (Evans, Snooks, Howson, & Davies, 2013 ). Several frameworks or models have been developed to provide guidance for the process of implementing research evidence into practice, including the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework (PARiHS; Rycroft‐Malone, 2004 ) and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR, Damschroder et al., 2009 ). This review was performed with the focus on a specific aspect of implementation—the concept of knowledge transfer and exchange (KTE), which is often noted but not explicated in existing models in the area of implementation. Discussing the impact of implementation research in mental health services (Proctor et al., 2009 ) considers KTE in this wider context, noting the movement of research into practice settings as the basis for implementation. They also cite work by the NIH and the CDC, which defines implementation as requiring the generation of knowledge, the dissemination (transfer, our addition) of this knowledge, followed by active efforts to support the implementation of this knowledge.

1.1. Background

There are many terms used to refer to KTE related activity, including dissemination, knowledge transfer and knowledge mobilization. A review by (Pentland et al., 2011 ) highlighted the variation in this area, stressing the challenge that this can create in providing guidance to researchers and practitioners. However, to frame the current research, it is important to be explicit about the definition of KTE that underpins this work. For this study, we adopted the following definition of KTE, as one which is routinely cited in research and reflects the views of the authors:

“an interactive interchange of knowledge between research users and researcher producers (Kiefer et al., 2005 ). [Its purpose is] to increase the likelihood that research evidence will be used in policy and practice decisions and to enable researchers to identify practice and policy‐relevant research questions” (cited in Mitton, Adair, McKenzie, Patten, & Perry, 2007 .729).

KTE is a complex, dynamic and iterative social process, (Kiefer et al., 2005 ; Ward, House, & Hamer, 2009a , 2009b ; Ward, Smith, Foy, House, & Hamer, 2010 ) which does not necessarily contribute directly to implementation but instead to an increased chance that evidence can and will be implemented. Consequently, KTE presents an early challenge to implementation of evidence‐based health care. To be rigorous and effective, it has been recommended that KTE activities are guided by a model that clearly shows how the process works and how it can help knowledge producers and users plan and evaluate KTE activities (Anderson, Allen, Peckham, & Goodwin, 2008 ; Armstrong, Waters, Roberts, Oliver, & Popay, 2006 ; Estabrooks, Squires, Cummings, Birdsell, & Norton, 2009 ; Graham, Tetroe, & Grp, 2007 ; McKibbon et al., 2013 ; Straus, Tetroe, & Graham, 2009 ; Ward, House, & Hamer, 2009a ; Ward, Smith, House, & Hamer, 2012 ; Wilson, Petticrew, Calnan, & Nazareth, 2010 ). Yet, KTE as a key aspect of implementation has rarely been explicitly operationalized in existing models of implementation.

2. THE REVIEW

The aim of this study was to review, analyse and synthesize the key components of KTE as evidenced in published health services research. Apart from the prevalence of the individual components of the components we will also capture the operational elements of these components and their interactions. To contextualize the components and their interactions, the findings will be presented in a form of a model.

2.2. Design

A scoping approach was adopted, following a detailed protocol (Prihodova, Guerin, & Kernohan, 2015 ). The review was guided the methodological framework proposed by Arksey and O'Malley (Arksey & O'Malley, 2005 ), with additional amendments based on (Levac, Colquhoun, and O'Brien, 2010 ; Levac et al., 2010 ). While the protocol for this review set out as one of the aims as appraisal of the relevance and suitability of these components for providers, settings and dimensions of palliative care, this study will report the general components of KTE in any healthcare setting identified by the review and their appraisal for palliative care will be addressed in a subsequent publication. In addition, in the absence of reporting guidelines for scoping reviews, the six‐stage process (Table  1 ) was benchmarked against the PRISMA guidelines (Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, Altman, & Grp, 2009 ) to ensure rigour.

Stages of systematic review applied

2.3. Search strategy

The search strategy included four search terms and their variations (knowledge (evidence, research, information, data), transfer (exchange, generation, translation, uptake, mobilization, dissemination, implementation), framework (model, concept) and health care (health system, health service, healthcare provider)) and was designed to be as extensive as possible. The search was performed across six main electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE (Elsevier), CINAHL Plus (EBSCO), PsycINFO (ProQuest), Social Services Abstracts, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts (ASSIA)). Only studies that sufficiently described an original (or adapted) explicit framework, model or concept of KTE applied in healthcare setting were included.

To be included, articles had to provide a description of an original (or adapted) model or framework (noting that these terms are often used interchangeably) that considered the implementation of research knowledge and its application. This included articles which presented a specific model of KTE and articles that used KTE models or model elements to inform the implementation of research into practice. Limiting searches to health services settings was intended to ensure a practical focus of the work and the potential to synthesize the operational elements of the KTE process rather than just the theoretical.

2.4. Search outcomes

The initial database search identified 7,544 abstracts with none identified elsewhere (Figure  1 ). After the removal of duplicates ( N  = 2,672; 35%), a further 7.7% of abstracts were removed due to following exclusion criteria: not research articles ( N  = 356; book/book chapter/conference proceedings, etc.); low quality ( N  = 158; no abstract, published in non‐peer reviewed journals); were not involving humans ( N  = 70). The remaining abstracts ( N  = 4,288; 57%) were screened independently by two authors (92% agreement rate on inclusion/exclusion), resulting in 298 (3.9%) articles identified for full‐text screening.

Flow diagram of the systematic review (modified from Moher et al., 2009 )

From the identified abstracts, we were unable to source 12 full‐texts and therefore 286 full‐texts were reviewed independently by two reviewers, with 75% agreement on inclusion/exclusion. A further 202 articles (71%) articles were removed at the full‐text review as they were found to not fit the inclusion criteria, with the final number 84 (29%) of articles included in data extraction. At the data extraction phase, the articles underwent a criteria appraisal (Table 3) and five more articles were removed following an in‐depth analysis due to very vague description of the model or its application. The final number of articles included in data analysis was 79 (28%). The summary details of these articles are included in Table  2 .

Studies identified by systematic review and included in the final analysis grouped by model used

2.5. Quality appraisal

In line with scoping reviews, limited application of quality appraisal criteria was undertaken; and aggregated quality assessments of the dataset are presented rather than study level assessments (Table  3 ).

Quality appraisal of articles included in the scoping review

2.6. Data abstraction and synthesis

Analysis of extracted data was conducted at two levels: descriptive and explorative. Level 1 (descriptive analysis) involved tabulation of basic information such as study design, participant samples and the named models. Level 2 (explorative analysis) involved thematic analysis of narrative data, of the descriptions of identified models and of their visual representations. We used thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006 ) wherein initial coding and the development of candidate themes were conducted independently by two authors, who then met to agree the final thematic map of the findings. Once the themes were agreed, two authors coded the data, while a third author conducted an independent coding check of 10% of the articles. The agreement for the credibility check of the independently coded themes was 83%. Frequency analysis provided the occurrence of each theme across the identified articles, as a reflection of the salience of the theme in the data.

As a validity check, stakeholder consultation was performed by presenting the findings at a national workshop for researchers, policy makers and patient/carer representatives in health services research. A stenographer recorded the workshop and feedback was gathered from attendees to allow reflection on the discussions. No significant changes were made to the components; however, the discussion highlighted the need for some clarity regarding the operational elements and the nature of the interaction between components. This led to some changes in the naming of components and operational elements and more clarity on structure. A visualization, incorporating the revisions from this process is presented in this paper.

3.1. Overview of articles and models

Of the 79 articles included in this scoping review, the majority were published in medical (53%) and nursing (25%) journals, followed by behavioural/psychological journals (7.6%), journals on medical training (6.3%), health services research (5%) and miscellaneous (2.1%). The earliest studies were published in 1985, with 2014 being the latest year included in the search; 70 articles (89%) were published after 2001 and over a third of all articles (35%) were published after 2010. This suggests a relatively recent increase in interest in the issue of knowledge transfer in health research.

In the 79 articles were references to 88 models or frameworks (including multiple occurrences across articles), with 49 unique models/frameworks named and 13 models not explicitly named. Five models were mentioned in multiple articles, with PARiHS being the most frequently cited (Rycroft‐Malone, 2004 ). When it came to the theoretical background of the framework, 19 (24%) articles provided no information, while 24 (30%) referred to previous publications. From the remaining articles, 25 (32%) referred to multiple other models/frameworks or theories and 11 (14%) to a single framework. Over half of the articles indicated the target audience for the KTE ( N  = 43, 54%), with the majority proposing the use of the model in multiple stakeholder groups ( N  = 32, 41%).

Our quality appraisal focused on fatal flaws, as outlined by Dixon‐Woods et al. (Dixon‐Woods et al., 2006 ). We also rated the level of detail in the description of the framework or its application. The findings highlight several limitations (see Table  3 ). All articles had clear statements of the aims and objectives, a majority (>90%) had a clearly described research design (where appropriate) and a significant proportion (76%) provided sufficient detail to analyse the framework. However, fewer articles (67%) provided a clear account of data analysis and findings or presented data to support their interpretations (40%), which may highlight the need for more critical evaluation of dissemination activities and limitations in the quality of this research.

3.2. Identifying the core components and operational elements of knowledge transfer and exchange

From the thematic analysis, six key themes were identified to represent the core components of KTE.

The first component of KTE—the Message reflects the information to be shared. Within this component, the most common operational element was the idea that the message is needs‐driven . This often‐presented research as a clinical or practical problem, while multiple studies applying the PARiHS framework referred to the research as needs‐ or problem‐based (Kristensen, Borg, & Hounsgaard, 2011 ; Rycroft‐Malone, 2004 ; Tilson & Mickan, 2014 ). The operational elements or attributes of the message as credible and actionable occurred with equal frequency. Research findings being actionable related to its use or application in practice and were particularly evident in articles considering the Ottawa Model of Research Use (Logan & Graham, 1998 ; Logan, Harrison, Graham, Dunn, & Bissonnette, 1999 ; Pronovost, Berenholtz, & Needham, 2008 ). The credibility of the message referred to the use of outcomes that are considered valid (Pronovost et al., 2008 ). Jack and Tonmyr (Jack & Tonmyr, 2008 ) applied Lavis’ model of KTE and referred to the importance of messages containing credible information. Occurring slightly less frequently was the operational element of the message as accessible , which was represented in as translating the knowledge or tailoring it for key stakeholders (Kitson et al., 2013 ; Tugwell, O'Connor, et al., 2006 ). The final operational element noted was that multiple types of message are important , which reflected the use of different research methods to generate messages and the potential for research to have different messages to transfer. For example, the revised PARiHS Framework (Rycroft‐Malone et al., 2002 ) noted that different types of research evidence are required to answer different questions relevant to practice.

The Process component represented the activities intended to implement the transfer of knowledge. This was often identified as a collaborative aspect of KTE, reflecting the “push‐pull” dynamic exchange of information. Taking the operational element of KTE as an interactive exchange, the Research Practice Integration model (Sterling & Weisner, 2006 ) referred to the bidirectional relationship between stakeholders in treatment and research. KTE was described as requiring skilled facilitation, with multiple articles referring to PARiHS model that highlights the importance of this. The KTE processes were also expected to be targeted and timely, stressing the need to target key groups such as policy makers (Aguilar‐Gaxiola et al., 2002b ), recognizing the importance of activities taking place at the right time (Haynes, Hayward, & Lomas, 1995 ).

The Process component also included the operational element of marketing the message, reflecting the need for the communicators (typically the researchers) to communicate in a way that effectively pitched information to their target audience. Herr et al. (Borbas, Morris, McLaughlin, Asinger, & Gobel, 2000 ; Herr, English, & Brown, 2003 ) drew on the Knowledge Development and Application model, discussing the need to ‘get the message out’ through dissemination activities. The KTE process was also recognized to require the support or endorsement of opinion leaders/champions, for example the article by Borbas et al. (Borbas et al., 2000 ) reported on their Healthcare Education and Research Foundation process, which uses clinical opinion leaders to support research implementation, while the Translating Research into Practice model reported by Tschannen et al. (Tschannen, Talsma, Gombert, & Mowry, 2011 ) also highlights the use of opinion leaders in the process. The final operational element reflected the need for KTE to draw on diverse activities, for example Aguilar‐Gaxiola et al. described multiple multifaceted activities as part of research on mental health care for Mexican Americans (Aguilar‐Gaxiola et al., 2002a , 2002b ).

The Stakeholders represent the people involved on either side of the exchange process. This was operationalized into four operational elements: knowledge users, knowledge beneficiaries and multiple stakeholders. The knowledge producers refer predominantly to the researchers themselves (Dufault, 2004 ; Ho et al., 2004 ; Sterling & Weisner, 2006 ); while knowledge users , sometimes referred to as knowledge consumers (Ho et al., 2004 ) represent the most common stakeholders—practitioners and policy makers, positioning them in the context of communities of professional practice, e.g., primary care practitioners (McCaughan, 2005 ). The knowledge beneficiaries represent the wider group of patients and families who benefit from the implementation (Hemmelgarn et al., 2012 ; Jack & Tonmyr, 2008 ). Finally, several papers emphasized that those involved in KTE have multiple stakeholders to consider including patients’ families and the general public (Anderson, Cosby, et al., 1999b ; Ho et al., 2004 ; Orlandi, 1987 ).

The context for KTE was reported at two important levels: local and wider social, economic and cultural. The Local Context, addressing the immediate, often organizational environments, where the transfer would occur, included four operational elements. The most prevalent of these was organizational influence, with organizations and their leaders/managers identified as key influencers in the KTE process. Senior colleagues in organizations were reported as instrumental in the adoption of research knowledge to implement change, (Dobbins, Ciliska, Cockerill, Burnsley, & DiCenso, 2002 ) or support evidence‐based practice (Stetler, 2003 ). Closely linked to this was the operational element of organizational culture, which may be expressed as the attitudes, knowledge and values expressed in the organization. Multiple articles implementing the PARIHS Framework (Helfrich et al., 2010 ) or the Translating Research into Practice model highlighted the importance of organizational culture and the importance of setting organizational standards (Tschannen et al., 2011 ).

Our findings highlighted the need for dedicated resources for KTE activities . For example, the Multisystem Model of Knowledge Integration and Translation, referred to resourcing effective implementation (Palmer & Kramlich, 2011 ), while the Conservation of Resources Theory, recognized the range of resources required and noted that these may differ at different stages of the process (Alvaro et al., 2010 ). The final operational element in this section was readiness for knowledge . One application of PARIHS emphasized receptivity of the context—a factor which is common in many of the articles applying or using this KTE model (Helfrich et al., 2011 ).

The inclusion of the Social, Cultural & Economic Context component recognized the influence of wider environmental factors influencing research and practice. While this was the least frequent theme it was evident in the Evidence‐based Information Circle, designed to help practitioners engage with evidence‐based practice (Thomson‐O'Brien & Moreland, 1998 ). This component included an outer context representing factors that may have an impact on decision making, with specific reference to aspects of the social, cultural and economic context. In the Practical, Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model the external environment was considered to have an influence on the implementation of research (Feldstein & Glasgow, 2008 ) while in the CFIR model, the outer setting incorporating wider cultural, political and economic factors was explicitly referenced (Damschroder & Hagedorn, 2011 ).

The final component of KTE highlighted the importance of evaluation in the model, with the concept of Evaluating Efficacy expressing the need for a mechanism for evaluation of the success of the knowledge transfer activity. It is interesting to note that, alongside the theme of Social, Cultural and Economic context, this component was least prevalent in the coding of data extracted. The Ottawa Model of Research Use (Logan & Graham, 1998 ; Logan et al., 1999 ) highlighted the importance of evaluating the outcomes of KTE and implementation work, while others referred to the importance of examining the effectiveness of transfer activities (Anderson, Caplan, et al., 1999a ) and the importance of both outcome and process evaluation (Sakala & Mayberry, 2006 ).

3.3. Reflections on the structure of the components

Informed by the discussions at the stakeholder workshop, a visualization incorporating these components is presented in Figure  2 . Also included are the operational elements identified as part of the analysis and the frequency of occurrence of each component and operational element.

Key components of knowledge transfer identified through thematic analysis (with frequencies reported)

Taking the components together the starting point of KTE activity is the knowledge to be transferred ( the Message ). The message is influenced by the Stakeholders, recognizing that there may be multiple groups who may influence the way the message needs to be communicated). Based on the message and the stakeholders the knowledge producer should identify the Processes to be used to ensure the message can be delivered to the stakeholders effectively. Also important is allowing for feedback to come back though the same channels. These interacting components sit in two identified layers, the Local Context and the wider Social, Cultural and Economic Context and highlight the need for researchers to consider how these contexts may have an impact on the Message, Stakeholders and Processes.

4. DISCUSSION

The aim of this review was to identify key components and related operational elements of KTE, intended to guide researchers’ actions in relation to KTE, in the broader context of implementation. The search identified 79 articles which included an explicit model related to transferring research findings in health settings. These articles were drawn from a range of disciplines, although medicine and nursing were the most common. The publication date range highlights a recent increase in research and dissemination activity in this area. This review identified almost 50 individual models or frameworks, with PARiHS the most frequent. Quality appraisal of the articles highlighted several limitations to the quality of the research; however, few articles were excluded on the basis of a lack of information on the model itself.

The thematic analysis identified six core components of KTE, three of which were commonly present in the articles. The messages to be transferred, the stakeholders and the specific processes by which transfer was achieved were considered in detail. However, the key practical finding lies in the operational elements in these components, which provide more specific and practical guidance for researchers intending to maximize the potential impact of their research. Recognizing that multiple types of message are important highlights the need to be aware of different processes when communicating with different stakeholders. Echoing this, the use of diverse activities as part of the KTE process was rarely evident in articles, perhaps due to the dominance of traditional methods that focus on academic dissemination. Another key finding is the importance of targeted and timely KTE activities. Rather than planning for dissemination at the end of the research process, the evidence presented in this review stresses the need for KTE to be an ongoing activity across the lifetime of the project. While transfer processes were frequently considered in previous studies, few considered multiple processes for a single study, suggesting a simplistic, linear approach to knowledge transfer. This does not reflect the complex non‐linear process of KTE evident across the findings of this review.

Recognizing the context where KTE is to take place is another key finding. While the immediate or local context was considered in more than half of the articles, the issue of the wider social, cultural and economic context was considered in less detail, with no evidence of specific operational elements to guide the researcher when considering the influence of this wider context. The need to consider not just the local but the wider context represents a possible shift in KTE activities. However, given that change in the health sector is often influenced by these wider factors (for example the impact of an economic recession), it is perhaps surprising that these aspects of the context are poorly expressed in existing models. Given the lack of representation of this component in the existing literature we would argue there is a need to increase awareness of its role in KTE and the possible activities that would operationalize this level of the process.

A novel finding is the lack of evidence that process and outcomes of KTE activity is being evaluated by those engaged in the process. In addition, the presence of methodological issues in the studies, such as lack of grounding in data and or detail on analysis and process, further highlights the need for rigorous evaluation of KTE activities. If researchers apply the key principles of evidence‐based practice to their KTE activities, then evaluating the effectiveness of these KTE activities becomes necessary. The focus on audit of practice evident in other areas of the health services (Ivers et al., 2012 ) could and should be extended to KTE, with researchers recognizing the importance of assessing how effective their KTE activities have been in reaching key stakeholders, beyond more traditional metrics such as article citation counts and journal impacts.

It is important to reflect on the methodological quality of this review before final conclusions can be drawn. While the presented findings are based on evidence pre‐2015, there was an exponential rise in the number of studies published since 2015; re‐running the search terms employed in this review yielded over 4000 results, highlighting the urgency in understanding KTE and implementation. While in‐depth analysis of the search terms is beyond the scope of this review, many of the recent studies were based on refining of existing models and clarifying the ways of using them in the process of implementation, e.g., (Harvey & Kitson, 2016 ). There have been significant developments in the conduct and use of systematic reviews in intervention and health research, which allowed for clear guidance in the development of this review. The method of review used was mapped onto the PRISMA procedure as the agreed process for systematic reviews and validity checks such as phases of independent review were included in the screening of articles and in the extraction and analysis of data. In addition, the methodology of the review was peer reviewed and published in advance of the completion of the study. However, there are limitations, not least the lack of engagement with unpublished and policy‐related literature and the timeframe of the search (papers published before January 2015). Despite these limitations we are confident that the rigour evident in the search and analysis provides a basis for confidence in the findings.

5. CONCLUSION

The components identified represent both established and emerging aspects of KTE, with a clear focus on effective ways of transferring research knowledge to care providers and stakeholders and could be used in applied settings and to inform future research. Specific operational elements in these components can directly guide the researcher to maximize the activities in relation to these components. The synthesis of the components and operational elements identified potentially provides a functional model of KTE that could offer researchers the tools to ensure their KTE activities are appropriate and a framework within which to evaluate their actions. Given the process of identification undertaken in this study the authors are tentatively proposing the structure presented in Figure  2 as an Evidence‐based model for the Transfer and Exchange of Research Knowledge (EMTReK).

While requiring further research, EMTReK could act as a resource for researchers planning KTE activities, with this review establishing an initial evidence‐base for the components and the operational evidence. We are conscious that the components and operational elements presented are not new, with each one less or more evident in the articles reviewed. The real potential for contribution lies in its focus on operational elements that may serve as a practical guide for researchers. To conduct an initial exploration of the model we have conducted a series of case studies where healthcare researchers applied the model to their own KTE activities. Initial findings are positive and highlight the need to develop a process guide to complement the description of the model presented in this article. This could be particularly important if there is increased interest in routine evaluation of KTE activities. However, there is a need for further evaluation of the EMTReK model (including the operational elements) before a definitive statement can be made about its contribution.

We recommend that researchers consider EMTReK as a possible functional model of KTE in health services research to ensure that research is conducted with knowledge transfer in mind from the earliest phases of the process. We also recommend that researchers develop evaluation strategies to both assess their activities and to provide feedback on the potential contribution of this model.

6. DECLARATIONS

• Ethics approval and consent to participate—Approval was not required given the documentary nature of the study and the lack of human participants (see www.ucd.i.e/researchethics ).
• Availability of data and material—The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study (namely the database of articles and extracted data) are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
• Authors’ contributions: LP, SG and GWK designed the study and conducted the review. SG and CT conducted the analysis of model components, LP conducted credibility checks. LP and SG drafted the article. All authors reviewed multiple drafts of the article.

7. REGISTRATION

As a scoping review the study was not registered, though the protocol of the review was published (PMID: 25739936; https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.12642 ).

8. IMPACT STATEMENT

• Through rigorous synthesis of evidence from a range of disciplines, this review identified key components and related operational elements of knowledge transfer and exchange (KTE) that may guide researchers’ actions in KTE in the broader context of implementation.
• The components represent established and emerging aspects of KTE and the specific operational elements are positioned to guide the KTE activities in applied settings.
• As a result, we propose that these components may represent a functional model of KTE—the Evidence‐based model for the Transfer and Exchange of Research Knowledge (EMTReK), highlighting the elements for consideration to ensure KTE activities are appropriate and as a framework where to evaluate their impact.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

No conflict of interest has been declared by the authors.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

All authors have agreed on the final version and meet at least one of the following criteria [recommended by the ICMJE ( http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/ )]:

• substantial contributions to conception and design, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data;
• drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content.

Supporting information

Acknowledgements.

The authors thank the All Ireland Institute of Hospice & Palliative Care who funded the research, Geraldine Boland who supported the data extraction and reliability checks, and Mary Jane Brown and Cathy Payne who provided comments on the research.

Prihodova L, Guerin S, Tunney C, Kernohan WG. Key components of knowledge transfer and exchange in health services research: Findings from a systematic scoping review . J Adv Nurs . 2019; 75 :313–326. 10.1111/jan.13836 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

This research was funded by the All Ireland Institute of Hospice & Palliative Care. The funding body reviewed and commented on the proposal for the research but were not involved in any aspect of the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data

• Aguilar‐Gaxiola, S. A. , Zelezny, L. , Garcia, B. , Edmondson, C. , Alejo‐Garcia, C. , & Vega, W. A. (2002a). Translating research into action: Reducing disparities in mental health care for Mexican Americans . Psychiatric Services , 53 ( 12 ), 1563–1568. 10.1176/appi.ps.53.12.1563 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Aguilar‐Gaxiola, S. A. , Zelezny, L. , Garcia, B. , Edmondson, C. , Alejo‐Garcia, C. , & Vega, W. A. (2002b). Mental health care for Latinos: Translating research into action: Reducing disparities in mental health care for Mexican Americans . Psychiatric Services , 53 ( 12 ), 1563–1568. 10.1176/appi.ps.53.12.1563 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Aguilar‐Gaxiola, S. A. , Zelezny, L. , Garcia, B. , Edmondson, C. , Alejo‐Garcia, C. , & Vega, W. A. (2002c) Translating research into action: Reducing disparities in mental health care for Mexican Americans . Psychiatric Services (Washington, D.C.) , 53 ( 12 ), 1563–1568. 10.1176/appi.ps.53.12.1563 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Alkema, G. E. , & Frey, D. (2006). Implications of translating research into practice: A medication management intervention . Home Health Care Services Quarterly , 25 ( 1–2 ), 33–54. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Alvaro, C. , Lyons, R. F. , Warner, G. , Hobfoll, S. E. , Martens, P. J. , Labonte, R. , & Brown, R. E. (2010). Conservation of resources theory and research use in health systems . Implementation Science , 5 , 79 10.1186/1748-5908-5-79 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ammentorp, J. , & Kofoed, P. E. (2011). Research in communication skills training translated into practice in a large organization: A proactive use of the RE‐AIM framework . Patient Education and Counseling , 82 , 482–487. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Anderson, S. , Allen, P. , Peckham, S. , & Goodwin, N. (2008). Asking the right questions: Scoping studies in the commissioning of research on the organisation and delivery of health services . Health Res Policy Syst , 6 , 7 10.1186/1478-4505-6-7 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Anderson, L. A. , Caplan, L. S. , Buist, D. S. , Newton, K. M. , Curry, S. J. , Scholes, D. , & LaCroix, A. Z. (1999a) Perceived barriers and recommendations concerning hormone replacement therapy counseling among primary care providers . Menopause (New York, N.Y.) , 6 ( 2 ), 161–166. 10.1097/00042192-199906020-00014 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Anderson, M. , Cosby, J. , Swan, B. , Moore, H. , & Broekhoven, M. (1999b). The use of research in local health service agencies . Social Science & Medicine , 49 , 1007–1019. 10.1016/S0277-9536(99)00179-3 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Arksey, H. , & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework . International Journal of Social Research Methodology , 8 ( 1 ), 19–32. 10.1080/1364557032000119616 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Armstrong, R. , Waters, E. , Roberts, H. , Oliver, S. , & Popay, J. (2006). The role and theoretical evolution of knowledge translation and exchange in public health . Journal of Public Health , 28 ( 4 ), 384–389. 10.1093/pubmed/fdl072 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Atchan, M. , Davis, D. , & Foureur, M. (2014). Applying a knowledge translation model to the uptake of the Baby Friendly Health Initiative in the Australian health care system . Women and Birth , 27 , 79–85. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Beck, A. , Bergman, D. A. , Rahm, A. K. , Dearing, J. W. , & Glasgow, R. E. (2009). Using implementation and dissemination concepts to spread 21st‐century well‐child care at a health maintenance organization . Permanente Journal , 13 ( 3 ), 10–18. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Blackwood, B. (2003). Can protocolised‐weaning developed in the United States transfer to the United Kingdom context: A discussion . Intensive and Critical Care Nursing , 19 ( 4 ), 215–225. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Boratgis, G. , Broderick, S. , Callahan, M. , Combes, J. , Lannon, C. , Mebane‐Sims, I. , … Watt, A. (2007). Disseminating QI interventions… quality improvement . Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety , 33 ( 12 ), 48–65. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Borbas, C. , Morris, N. , McLaughlin, B. , Asinger, R. , & Gobel, F. (2000). The role of clinical opinion leaders in guideline implementation and quality improvement . Chest , 118 ( 2 Suppl ), 24S–32S. 10.1378/chest.118.2_suppl.24S [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Braun, V. , & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology . Qualitative Research in Psychology , 3 ( 2 ), 77–101. 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brown, D. , & McCormack, B. (2005). Developing postoperative pain management: Utilising the promoting action on research implementation in health services (PARIHS) framework . Worldviews on Evidence‐Based Nursing , 2 , 131–141. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Capasso, V. , Collins, J. , Griffith, C. , Lasala, C. A. , Kilroy, S. , Martin, A. T. , … Wood, S. L. (2009). Outcomes of a clinical nurse specialist‐initiated wound care education program using the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services Framework . Clinical Nurse Specialist , 23 , 252–257. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Damschroder, L. J. , Aron, D. C. , Keith, R. E. , Kirsh, S. R. , Alexander, J. A. , & Lowery, J. C. (2009). Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: A consolidated framework for advancing implementation science . Implementation Science , 4 , 15 10.1186/1748-5908-4-50 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Damschroder, L. J. , & Hagedorn, H. J. (2011). A guiding framework and approach for implementation research in substance use disorders treatment . Psychology of Addictive Behaviors , 25 , 194–205. 10.1037/a0022284 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• D'Andreta, D. , Scarbrough, H. , & Evans, S. (2013). The enactment of knowledge translation: A study of the Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care initiative within the English National Health Service . Journal of Health Services Research and Policy , 18 ( 3 ), 40–52. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dixon‐Woods, M. , Cavers, D. , Agarwal, S. , Annandale, E. , Arthur, A. , Harvey, J. , … Sutton, A. J. (2006). Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups . BMC Medical Research Methodology , 6 , 35 10.1186/1471-2288-6-35 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dobbins, M. , Ciliska, D. , Cockerill, R. , Burnsley, J. , & DiCenso, A. (2002). A framework for the dissemination and utilization of research for health‐care policy and practice . Online Journal of Knowledge Synthesis for Nursing , 9 ( 7 ), 12. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Donaldson, N. E. , Rutledge, D. N. , & Ashley, J. (2004). Outcomes of adoption: Measuring evidence uptake by individuals and organizations . Worldviews on Evidence‐Based Nursing , 1 , s41–s51. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Doran, D. M. , & Sidani, S. (2007). Outcomes‐focused knowledge translation: A framework for knowledge translation and patient outcomes improvement . Worldviews on Evidence‐Based Nursing , 4 , 3–13. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Douglas, M. L. , McGhan, S. L. , Tougas, D. , Fenton, N. , Sarin, C. , Latycheva, O. , & Befus, A. D. (2013). Asthma education program for First Nations children: An exemplar of the Knowledge‐to‐Action Framework . Canadian Respiratory Journal , 20 , 295–300. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dufault, M. (2004). Testing a collaborative research utilization model to translate best practices in pain management . Worldviews on Evidence‐Based Nursing , 1 , S26–S32. 10.1111/j.1524-475X.2004.04049.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dzewaltowski, D. A. , Glasgow, R. G. , Klesges, L. M. , Estabrooks, P. A. , & Brock, E. (2004). RE‐AIM: Evidence‐based standards and a web resource to improve translation of research into practice . Annals of Behavioral Medicine , 28 ( 2 ), 75–80. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Elliott, S. J. , O'Loughlin, J. , Robinson, K. , Eyles, J. , Cameron, R. , Harvey, D. , … Gelskey, D. (2003). Conceptualizing dissemination research and activity: The case of the Canadian Heart Health Initiative . Health Education and Behaviour , 30 ( 3 ), 267–282, 283–286. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ellis, I. , Howard, P. , Larson, A. , & Robertson, J. (2005). From workshop to work practice: An exploration of context and facilitation in the development of evidence‐based practice . Worldviews on Evidence‐Based Nursing , 2 , 84–93. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Estabrooks, C. A. , Squires, J. E. , Cummings, G. G. , Birdsell, J. M. , & Norton, P. G. (2009). Development and assessment of the Alberta Context Tool . Bmc Health Services Research , 9 , 234 10.1186/1472-6963-9-234 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Evans, B. A. , Snooks, H. , Howson, H. , & Davies, M. (2013). How hard can it be to include research evidence and evaluation in local health policy implementation? Results from a mixed methods study . Implementation Science , 8 , 17 10.1186/1748-5908-8-17 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Feldstein, A. C. , & Glasgow, R. E. (2008). A practical, robust implementation and sustainability model (PRISM) for integrating research findings into practice . Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety/Joint Commission Resources , 34 ( 4 ), 228–243. 10.1016/S1553-7250(08)34030-6 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Florin, P. , Friend, K. B. , Buka, S. , Egan, C. , Barovier, L. , & Amodei, B. (2012). The Interactive Systems Framework Applied to the Strategic Prevention Framework: The Rhode Island Experience . American Journal of Community Psychology , 50 ( 3–4 ), 402–414. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gabbay, J. , le May, A. , & McCaughan, D. (2005). Primary care practitioners based everyday practice on internalised tacit guidelines derived through social interactions with trusted colleagues . Evidence Based Nursing , 8 ( 3 ), 94. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Glasgow, R. E. (2013). What does it mean to be pragmatic? Pragmatic methods, measures, and models to facilitate research translation . Health Education and Behavior , 40 , 257–265. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Graham, I. D. , Tetroe, J. , & Grp, K. T. T. R. (2007). Some theoretical underpinnings of knowledge translation . Academic Emergency Medicine , 14 ( 11 ), 936–941. 10.1197/j.aem.2007.07.004 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Greenhalgh, T. , Robert, G. , MacFarlane, F. , Bate, P. , & Kyriakidou, O. (2004). Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: Systematic review and recommendations . Milbank Quarterly , 82 ( 4 ), 581–629. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Grimshaw, J. , Ward, J. , & Eccles, M. (2006). Getting research into practice In Oxford handbook of public health practice (pp. 480–48). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hartling, L. , Scott‐Findlay, S. , Johnson, D. , Osmond, M. , Plint, A. , Grimshaw, J. , Klassen, T. P. , & CIHRTPEM (2007). Bridging the gap between clinical research and knowledge translation in pediatric emergency medicine . Academic Emergency Medicine , 14 , 968–977. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hartzler, B. , Lash, S. J. , & Roll, J. M. (2012). Contingency management in substance abuse treatment: A structured review of the evidence for its transportability . Drug and Alcohol Dependence , 122 , 1–10. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Harvey, G. , & Kitson, A. (2016). PARIHS revisited: From heuristic to integrated framework for the successful implementation of knowledge into practice . Implementation Science , 11 , 33. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Haynes, R. B. , Hayward, R. S. , & Lomas, J. (1995). Bridges between health care research evidence and clinical practice . Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA , 2 ( 6 ), 342–350. 10.1136/jamia.1995.96157827 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Helfrich, C. D. , Blevins, D. , Smith, J. L. , Kelly, P. A. , Hogan, T. P. , Hagedorn, H. , … Sales, A. E. (2011). Predicting implementation from organizational readiness for change: A study protocol . Implementation Science , 6 , 76 10.1186/1748-5908-6-76 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Helfrich, C. D. , Damschroder, L. J. , Hagedorn, H. J. , Daggett, G. S. , Sahay, A. , Ritchie, M. , … Stetler, C. B. (2010). A critical synthesis of literature on the promoting action on research implementation in health services (PARIHS) framework . Implementation Science , 5 , 82 10.1186/1748-5908-5-82 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hemmelgarn, B. R. , Manns, B. J. , Straus, S. , Naugler, C. , Holroyd‐Leduc, J. , Braun, T. C. , … Tonelli, M. (2012). Knowledge translation for nephrologists: Strategies for improving the identification of patients with proteinuria . Journal of Nephrology , 25 , 933–943. 10.5301/jn.5000226 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Herr, E. C. M. , English, M. J. , & Brown, N. B. (2003). Translating mental health services research into practice: A perspective from staff at the US substance abuse and mental health services administration . Alzheimer's Care Quarterly , 4 ( 3 ), 241–253. [ Google Scholar ]
• Heyland, D. K. , Dhaliwal, R. , Cahill, N. E. , Carli, F. , Flum, D. , Ko, C. , … McClave, S. A. (2013). Driving perioperative nutrition quality improvement processes forward! Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition , 37 ( 5 Suppl ), 83S–98S. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ho, K. , Bloch, R. , Gondocz, T. , Laprise, R. , Perrier, L. , Ryan, D. , … Wenghofer, E. (2004). Technology‐enabled knowledge translation: Frameworks to promote research and practice . The Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions , 24 ( 2 ), 90–99. 10.1002/chp.1340240206 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ilott, I. , Gerrish, K. , Booth, A. , & Field, B. (2013). Testing the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research on health care innovations from South Yorkshire . Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice , 19 , 915–924. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ivers, N. , Jamtvedt, G. , Flottorp, S. , Young, J. M. , Odgaard‐Jensen, J. , French, S. D. , … Oxman, A. D. . (2012). Audit and feedback: Effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes . Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews , 6 Art. No.: CD000259. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jack, S. , & Tonmyr, L. (2008). Knowledge Transfer and Exchange: Disseminating Canadian Child Maltreatment Surveillance Findings to Decision Makers . Child Indicators Research , 1 , 51–64. 10.1007/s12187-007-9001-3 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jacobson, N. , Butterill, D. , & Goering, P. (2005). Consulting as a strategy for knowledge transfer . Milbank Quarterly , 83 , 299–321. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kahn, K. L. , Mendel, P. , Leuschner, K. J. , Hiatt, L. , Gall, E. M. , Siegel, S. , & Weinberg, D. A. (2014). The national response for preventing healthcare‐associated infections: Research and adoption of prevention practices . Medical Care , 52 ( 2 Suppl 1 ), S33–S45. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kastner, M. , & Straus, S. E. (2012). Application of the Knowledge‐to‐Action and Medical Research Council frameworks in the development of an osteoporosis clinical decision support tool . Journal of Clinical Epidemiology , 65 , 1163–1170. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kavanagh, T. , Watt‐Watson, J. , & Stevens, B. (2007). An examination of the factors enabling the successful implementation of evidence‐based acute pain practices into pediatric nursing . Children's Health Care , 36 ( 3 ), 303–321. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kiefer, L. , Frank, J. , Di Ruggiero, E. , Dobbins, M. , Manuel, D. , Gully, P. R. , & Mowat, D. (2005). Fostering evidence‐based decision‐making in Canada – Examining the Need for a Canadian Population and Public Health Evidence Centre and Research Network . Canadian Journal of Public Health‐Revue Canadienne De Sante Publique , 96 ( 3 ), I1–I19. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kitson, A. , Powell, K. , Hoon, E. , Newbury, J. , Wilson, A. , & Beilby, J. (2013). Knowledge translation within a population health study: How do you do it? Implementation Science , 8 , 54 10.1186/1748-5908-8-54 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Krishnan, A. , Nongkynrih, B. , Kapoor, S. K. , & Pandav, C. (2009). A role for INDEPTH Asian sites in translating research to action for non‐communicable disease prevention and control: A case study from Ballabgarh, India . Global Health Action , 2 , 76–83. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kristensen, H. K. , Borg, T. , & Hounsgaard, L. (2011). Facilitation of research‐based evidence within occupational therapy in stroke rehabilitation . British Journal of Occupational Therapy , 74 , 473–483. 10.4276/030802211X13182481841949 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kutner, J. S. (2011). A significant milestone for palliative care: Imperative for dissemination and implementation research . Journal of Palliative Medicine , 14 ( 11 ), 1194–1195. 10.1089/jpm.2011.9639 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Levac, D. , Colquhoun, H. , & O'Brien, K. K. (2010). Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology . Implementation Science , 5 , 69 10.1186/1748-5908-5-69 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Logan, J. , & Graham, I. D. (1998). Toward a comprehensive interdisciplinary model of health care research use . Science Communication , 20 , 227–246. 10.1177/1075547098020002004 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Logan, J. , Harrison, M. B. , Graham, I. D. , Dunn, K. , & Bissonnette, J. (1999) Evidence‐based pressure‐ulcer practice: The Ottawa model of research use . The Canadian Journal of Nursing Research = Revue Canadienne de Recherche en Sciences Infirmières , 31 ( 1 ), 37–52. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mark, D. D. , Latimer, R. W. , & Hardy, M. D. (2010). Stars aligned for evidence‐based practice: A triservice initiative in the pacific . Nursing Research , 59 , S48–S57. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McCaughan, D. (2005). Primary care practitioners based everyday practice on internalised tacit guidelines derived through social interactions with trusted colleagues . Evidence Based Nursing , 8 ( 3 ), 94 10.1136/ebn.8.3.94 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McKibbon, K. A. , Lokker, C. , Keepanasseril, A. , Colquhoun, H. , Haynes, R. B. , & Wilczynski, N. L. (2013). WhatisKT wiki: A case study of a platform for knowledge translation terms and definitions – descriptive analysis . Implementation Science , 8 , 9. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McNeill, D. , & Kelley, E. (2005). How the National Healthcare Quality and Disparities Reports can catalyze quality improvement . Medical Care , 43 , 82–88. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mende, P. L. , Meredith, L. S. , Schoenbaum, M. , Sherbourne, C. D. , & Wells, K. B. (2008). Interventions in organizational and community context: A framework for building evidence on dissemination and implementation in health services research . Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research , 35 , 21–37. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Milner, M. , Estabrooks, C. A. , & Myrick, F. (2006). Research utilization and clinical nurse educators: A systematic review . Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice , 12 , 639–655. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mitton, C. , Adair, C. E. , McKenzie, E. , Patten, S. B. , & Perry, B. W. (2007). Knowledge transfer and exchange: Review and synthesis of the literature . Milbank Quarterly , 85 ( 4 ), 729–768. 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2007.00506.x [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Moher, D. , Liberati, A. , Tetzlaff, J. , Altman, D. G. , & Grp, P. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses: The PRISMA statement . Journal of Clinical Epidemiology , 62 ( 10 ), 1006–1012. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.005 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Moore, M. L. (1999). From randomized trial to community‐focused practice . Journal of Nursing Scholarship , 31 ( 4 ), 349–354. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nakata, M. , Kuriyama, S. , Mitsuyasu, K. , Morimoto, M. , & Tomioka, K. (1989). Transfer of innovation for advancement in dentistry: A case study on pit and fissure sealants’ use in Japan . International Dental Journal , 39 ( 4 ), 263–268. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Obrecht, J. A. , Van Hulle Vincent, C. , & Ryan, C. S. (2014). Implementation of evidence‐based practice for a pediatric pain assessment instrument . Clinical Nurse Specialist , 28 ( 2 ), 97–104. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Orlandi, M. A. (1987). Promoting health and preventing disease in health care settings: An analysis of barriers . Preventive Medicine , 16 ( 1 ), 119–130. 10.1016/0091-7435(87)90011-9 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Palmer, D. , & Kramlich, D. (2011). An introduction to the multisystem model of knowledge integration and translation . Advances in Nursing Science , 34 , 29–38. 10.1097/ANS.0b013e318209439f [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pentland, D. , Forsyth, K. , Maciver, D. , Walsh, M. , Murray, R. , Irvine, L. , & Sikora, S. (2011). Key characteristics of knowledge transfer and exchange in healthcare: Integrative literature review . Journal of Advanced Nursing , 67 ( 7 ), 1408–1425. 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2011.05631.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Petzold, A. , Korner‐Bitensky, N. , & Menon, A. (2010). Using the knowledge to action process model to incite clinical change . Journal of Continuing Education in Health Professions , 30 ( 3 ), 167–171. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Prihodova, L. , Guerin, S. , & Kernohan, W. G. (2015). Knowledge transfer and exchange frameworks in health and their applicability to palliative care: Scoping review protocol . Journal of Advanced Nursing , 71 ( 7 ), 1717–1725. 10.1111/jan.12642 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Proctor, E. K. , Landsverk, J. , Aarons, G. , Chambers, D. , Glisson, C. , & Mittman, B. (2009). Implementation research in mental health services: An emerging science with conceptual, methodological and training challenges . Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research , 36 ( 1 ), 24–34. 10.1007/s10488-008-0197-4 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pronovost, P. , Berenholtz, S. , & Needham, D. (2008). Translating evidence into practice: A model for large scale knowledge translation . British Medical Journal , 337 , a1714 10.1136/bmj.a1714 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rogers, J. L. (2009). Transferring research into practice an integrative review . Clinical Nurse Specialist , i , 192–199. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rubenstein, L. V. E. , Chaney, F. , Ober, S. , Felker, B. , Sherman, S. E. , Lanto, A. , & Vivell, S. (2010). Using evidence‐based quality improvement methods for translating depression collaborative care research into practice . Families Systems and Health , 28 ( 2 ), 91–113. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ruffolo, M. C. , & Capobianco, J. (2012). Moving an evidence‐based intervention into routine mental health care: A multifaceted case example . Social Work in Health Care , 51 , 77–87. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Russell‐Babin, K. A. , & Miley, H. (2013). Implementing the best available evidence in early delirium identification in elderly hip surgery patients . International Journal of Evidence‐Based Healthcare , 11 ( 1 ), 39–45. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rycroft‐Malone, J. (2004). The PARIHS framework – A framework for guiding the implementation of evidence‐based practice . Journal of Nursing Care Quality , 19 ( 4 ), 297–304. 10.1097/00001786-200410000-00002 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rycroft‐Malone, J. , Kitson, A. , Harvey, G. , McCormack, B. , Seers, K. , Titchen, A. , & Estabrooks, C. (2002). Ingredients for change: Revisiting a conceptual framework . Quality & Safety in Health Care , 11 , 174–180. 10.1136/qhc.11.2.174 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rycroft‐Malone, J. , Seers, K. , Chandler, J. , Hawkes, C. A. , Crichton, N. , Allen, C. , … Strunin, L. (2013). The role of evidence, context, and facilitation in an implementation trial: Implications for the development of the PARIHS framework . Implementation Science , 8 . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sakala, C. , & Mayberry, L. J. (2006). Vaginal or cesarean birth? Application of an advocacy organization‐driven research translation model . Nursing Research , 55 , S68–S74. 10.1097/00006199-200603001-00011 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Santesso, N. , & Tugwell, P. (2006). Knowledge translation in developing countries . Journal of Continuing Education in Health Professions , 26 ( 1 ), 87–96. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Silva, A. B. , Morel, C. M. , & de Moraes, I. H. S. (2014). Proposal for a telehealth concept in the translational research model . Revista de saúde pública , 48 ( 2 ), 347–356. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sterling, S. , & Weisner, C. (2006). Translating research findings into practice ‐ Example of treatment services for adolescents in managed care . Alcohol Research & Health , 29 , 11–18. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stetler, C. B. (2003). Role of the organization in translating research into evidence‐based practice . Outcomes Management , 7 ( 3 ), 97–103. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Straus, S. E. , Tetroe, J. , & Graham, I. (2009). Defining knowledge translation . Canadian Medical Association Journal , 181 ( 3–4 ), 165–168. 10.1503/cmaj.081229 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tavernier, S. S. (2014). Translating research on the distress thermometer into practice . Clinical Journal of Oncology Nursing , 18 , 26–30. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thomson‐O'Brien, M. A. , & Moreland, J. (1998). Evidence‐based practice information circle… adapted from a presentation at the 1996 Canadian Physiotherapy Association Congress in Victoria, British Columbia . Physiotherapy Canada , 50 ( 3 ), 184. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tilson, J. K. , & Mickan, S. (2014). Promoting physical therapists’ of research evidence to inform clinical practice: Part 1‐theoretical foundation, evidence and description of the PEAK program . Bmc Medical Education , 14 , 125 10.1186/1472-6920-14-125 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tschannen, D. , Talsma, A. , Gombert, J. , & Mowry, J. L. (2011). Using the TRIP model to disseminate an IT‐based pressure ulcer intervention . Western Journal of Nursing Research , 33 , 427–442. 10.1177/0193945910379436 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tugwell, P. , O'Connor, A. , Andersson, N. , Mhatre, S. , Kristjansson, E. , Jacobsen, M. J. , … Losos, J. (2006). Reduction of inequalities in health: Assessing evidence‐based tools . International Journal for Equity in Health , 5 , 11 10.1186/1475-9276-5-11 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tugwell, P. , Robinson, V. , Grimshaw, J. , & Santesso, N. (2006). Systematic reviews and knowledge translation . Bulletin of the World Health Organization , 84 , 643–651. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ullrich, P. M. , Sahay, A. , & Stetler, C. B. (2014). Use of implementation theory: A focus on PARIHS . Worldviews on Evidence‐Based Nursing , 11 , 26–34. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Unützer, J. , Powers, D. , Katon, W. , & Langston, C. (2005). From establishing an evidence‐based practice to implementation in real‐world settings: IMPACT as a case study . Psychiatric Clinics of North America , 28 ( 4 ), 1079–1092. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Urquhart, R. , Porter, G. A. , & Grunfeld, E. (2011). Reflections on knowledge brokering within a multidisciplinary research team . Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions , 31 , 283–290. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Urquhart, R. , Sargeant, J. , & Grunfeld, E. (2013). Exploring the usefulness of two conceptual frameworks for understanding how organizational factors influence innovation implementation in cancer care . Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions , 33 , 48–58. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wallace, L. M. , Brown, K. E. , & Hilton, S. (2014). Planning for, implementing and assessing the impact of health promotion and behaviour change interventions: A way forward for health psychologists . Health Psychology Review , 8 , 8–33. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ward, V. , House, A. , & Hamer, S. (2009a). Developing a framework for transferring knowledge into action: A thematic analysis of the literature . Journal of Health Services Research & Policy , 14 ( 3 ), 156–164. 10.1258/jhsrp.2009.008120 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ward, V. L. , House, A. O. , & Hamer, S. (2009b). Knowledge brokering: Exploring the process of transferring knowledge into action . BMC Health Services Research , 9 ( 1 ), 12 10.1186/1472-6963-9-12 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ward, V. , Smith, S. , Foy, R. , House, A. , & Hamer, S. (2010). Planning for knowledge translation: A researcher's guide . Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice , 6 , 527–541. 10.1332/174426410X535882 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ward, V. , Smith, S. , House, A. , & Hamer, S. (2012). Exploring knowledge exchange: A useful framework for practice and policy . Social Science & Medicine , 74 ( 3 ), 297–304. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.09.021 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilkins, N. , Thigpen, S. , Lockman, J. , Mackin, J. , Madden, M. , Perkins, T. , … Donovan, J. (2013). Putting program evaluation to work: A framework for creating actionable knowledge for suicide prevention practice . Translational Behavioral Medicine , 3 ( 2 ), 149–161. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilson, P. M. , Petticrew, M. , Calnan, M. W. , & Nazareth, I. (2010). Disseminating research findings: What should researchers do? A systematic scoping review of conceptual frameworks . Implementation Science , 5 , 91 10.1186/1748-5908-5-91 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wright, J. , McCormack, B. , Coffey, A. , & McCarthy, G. (2007). Evaluating the context within which continence care is provided in rehabilitation units for older people . International Journal of Older People Nursing , 2 ( 1 ), 9–19. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Review Article
• Open access
• Published: 13 September 2021

Use and effectiveness of policy briefs as a knowledge transfer tool: a scoping review

• Diana Arnautu 1 &
• Christian Dagenais 1  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  8 , Article number:  211 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

15k Accesses

18 Citations

99 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Health humanities
• Medical humanities

There is a significant gap between researchers’ production of evidence and its use by policymakers. Several knowledge transfer strategies have emerged in the past years to promote the use of research. One of those strategies is the policy brief; a short document synthesizing the results of one or multiple studies. This scoping study aims to identify the use and effectiveness of policy briefs as a knowledge transfer strategy. Twenty-two empirical articles were identified, spanning 35 countries. Results show that policy briefs are considered generally useful, credible and easy to understand. The type of audience is an essential component to consider when writing a policy brief. Introducing a policy brief sooner rather than later might have a bigger impact since it is more effective in creating a belief rather than changing one. The credibility of the policy brief’s author is also a factor taken into consideration by decision-makers. Further research needs to be done to evaluate the various forms of uses of policy briefs by decision-makers.

Similar content being viewed by others

Determinants of behaviour and their efficacy as targets of behavioural change interventions

Identity and inequality misperceptions, demographic determinants and efficacy of corrective measures

An overview of clinical decision support systems: benefits, risks, and strategies for success

Introduction.

Improving well-being and reducing health-related inequalities is a challenging endeavor for public policymakers. They must consider the nature and significance of the issue, the proposed interventions and their pros and cons such as their impact and acceptability (Lavis et al., 2012 ; Mays et al., 2005 ). Policymakers are members of a government department, legislature or other organization responsible for devising new regulations and laws (Cambridge University Press, 2019 ). They face the challenge of finding the best solutions to multiple health-related crises while being the most time and cost-effective possible. Limited by time and smothered by an overwhelming amount of information, some policymakers are likely to use cognitive shortcuts by selecting the “evidence” most appropriate to their political leanings (Baekgaard et al., 2019 ; Cairney et al., 2019 ; Oliver and Cairney, 2019 ).

To prevent snap decisions in policymaking, it is essential to develop tools to facilitate the dissemination and use of empirical research. Evidence-informed solutions might be an effective way to address these complicated questions since they derive knowledge from accurate and robust evidence instead of beliefs and provide a more holistic view of a problem. Although it may be possible for different stakeholders to agree on certain matters, a consensus is uncommon (Nutley et al., 2013 ). Using research evidence allows policymakers to decrease their bias towards an intervention’s perceived effectiveness. This leads to more confidence among policymakers on what to expect from an intervention as their decisions are guided by evidence (Lavis et al., 2004 ). However, trying to integrate research findings into the policy-making process comes with a whole new set of challenges, both for researchers and policymakers.

Barriers to evidence-informed policy

Barriers to evidence-informed policy can be defined in three categories: the research evidence is not available in an accessible format for the policymaker, the evidence is disregarded for political or ideological reasons and the evidence is not applicable to the political context (Hawkins and Pakhurst, 2016 ; Uzochukwu et al., 2016 ).

The first category of barriers refers to the availability and the type of evidence. The vast amount of information policymakers need to keep up-to-date in specific fields is a particular challenge to this barrier, leading to policymakers being frequently overwhelmed with the amount of information they need to go through regarding each case (Orandi and Locke, 2020 ). Decision-makers have reported a lack of competencies in finding, evaluating, interpreting or using certain evidence such as systematic reviews in their decision-making, leading to difficulty in accessing these reviews and identifying the key messages quickly (Tricco et al., 2015 ). Although policymakers use a broader variety of forms of evidence than previously examined in the literature, scholars have rarely been consulted and research evidence has rarely been seen as directly applicable (Oliver and de Vocht, 2017 ). The lack of awareness on the importance of research evidence and on the ways to access these resources also contribute to the gap between research and policy (Oliver et al., 2014 ; van de Goor et al., 2017 ). Some other frequently reported barriers to evidence use in policymaking were the poor access to timely, quality and relevant research evidence as well as the limited collaboration between policymakers and researchers (Oliver et al., 2014 ; Uzochukwu et al., 2016 ; van de Goor et al., 2017 ). Given the fact that research is only one input amongst all the others that policymakers must consider in their decision, it is no surprise that policymakers may disregard research evidence in favor of other sources of information (Uzochukwu et al., 2016 ).

The second category of barriers refers to policymakers’ ideology regarding research evidence and the presence of biases. Resistance to change and a lack of willingness by some policymakers to use research are two factors present when attempting to bridge the gap. This could be explained by certain sub-cultures of policymaking that grants little importance to evidence-informed solutions or by certain policymakers prioritizing their own opinion when research findings go against their expectations or against current policy (Koon et al., 2013 ; Uzochukwu et al., 2016 ). Policymakers tend to interpret new information based on their past attitudes and beliefs, much like the general population (Baekgaard et al., 2019 ). It also does not seem to persuade policymakers with beliefs opposed to the evidence, rather it increases the effect of attitudes on the interpretation of information by policymakers (Baekgaard et al., 2019 ). This highlights the importance of finding methods to disseminate tailored evidence in a way that policymakers will be open to receive and consider (Cairney and Kwiatkowski, 2017 ).

The third category of barriers refers to the evidence produced not always being tailor-made for application in different contexts (Uzochukwu et al., 2016 ; WHO, 2004 ). Indeed, the political context is an undeniable factor in the use of evidence in policymaking. Political and institutional factors such as the level of state centralization and democratization, the influence of external organizations and donors, the organization of bureaucracies and the social norms and values, can all affect the use of evidence in policy (Liverani et al., 2013 ). The elaboration of new policies implies making choices between different priorities while taking into consideration the limited resources available (Hawkins and Pakhurst, 2016 ). The evidence of research can always be contested or balanced with the potential negative consequences of the intervention in another domain, such as a health-care intervention having larger consequences on the economy. Even if the effectiveness of an intervention can be proved beyond doubt, this given issue might not be a priority for decision-makers, or it might involve unrealistic resources that would rather be granted to other issues. Policymakers need to stay aware of the political priorities identified and the citizens they need to justify their decisions to. In this sense, politics and institutions are not a barrier to the use of research but rather they are the context under which evidence must respond to (Cairney and Kwiatkowski, 2017 ; Hawkins and Parkhurst, 2016 ).

Summaries to prevent information overload

A great deal of research evidence has been developed but not enough of it is being disseminated in effective ways (Oliver and Boaz, 2019 ). Offering a summary of research results in an accessible format could facilitate policy discussion and ultimately improve the use of research and help policymakers with their decisions (Arcury et al., 2017 ; Cairney and Kwiatkowski, 2017 ). In this age of information overload, when too much information is provided, one can have trouble discerning what is most important and make a decision. It is not unlikely that policymakers will, after a brief glance, discard a large amount of information given to them (Beynon et al., 2012 ; Yang et al., 2003 ). Decision-makers oftentimes criticize the length and overly dense contents of research documents (Dagenais and Ridde, 2018 ; Oliver et al., 2014 ). Hence, summaries of research results could increase the odds of decision-makers reading and therefore using the evidence proposed by researchers.

There are different methods to summarize research findings to provide facts and more detail for those involved in decision-making. For example, an infographic is an effective visual representation that explains information simply and quickly by using a combination of text and graphical symbols (Huang and Tan, 2007 ). Another type of research summary is the rapid review, a form of knowledge synthesis tailored and targeted to answer specific questions arising in “real world” policy or program environments (Moore et al., 2016 ; Wilson et al., 2015 ). They are oftentimes commissioned by people who would need scientific results to back up a decision. To produce the information in a timely manner, certain components of the systematic review process need to be simplified or omitted (Khangura et al., 2012 ). One study examining the use of 139 rapid reviews found that 89% of them had been used by commissioning agencies, on average up to three uses per review. Policymakers used those rapid reviews mostly to determine the details of a policy, to identify priorities and solutions for future action and communicate the information to stakeholders. However, rapid reviews might be susceptible to bias as a consequence of streamlining the systematic review process (Tricco et al., 2015 ). Also, policymakers may not always be able to commission a rapid review due to financial constraints.

Policy briefs as a knowledge transfer tool

Another approach to summarizing research, which is more focused on summarizing results for the use of policymakers, is the policy brief. There are multiple definitions to the policy brief (Dagenais et Ridde, 2018 ). However, in this article it will refer to a short document that uses graphics and text to summarize the key elements of one or multiple researches and provides a succinct explanation of a policy issue or problem, together with options and specific recommendations for addressing that issue or problem (Arcury et al., 2017 ; Keepnews, 2016 ).

The objective of a policy brief is to inform policymakers’ decisions or motivate action (Keepnews, 2016 ; Wong et al., 2017 ). Their resolve can be placed on a continuum going from “neutral”, meaning objective and nuanced information, to “interventionist”, which puts forwards solutions to the stated problem (Dagenais and Ridde, 2018 ). However, it is not an advocacy statement nor is it an opinion piece. A policy brief is analytic in nature and aims to remain objective and fact-based, even if the evidence is persuasive (Wong et al., 2017 ). A policy brief should include contextual and structural factors as a way to apply locally what was initially more general evidence (Rajabi, 2012 ).

What is known about format preferences

The format of policy briefs is just as important as the content when it comes to evidence use by policymakers. Decision-makers like concise documents that can be quickly examined and interpreted (Rajabi, 2012 ). Evidence should be understandable and user-friendly, as well as visually appealing and easy to access (Beynon et al., 2012 ; Marquez et al., 2018 ; Oliver et al., 2014 ). Tailoring the message to the targeted audience and ensuring the timing is appropriate are also two important factors in research communication. Indeed, the wording and contextualization of findings can have a noticeable impact on the use of those results (Langer et al., 2016 ). Policymakers also prefer documents written by expert opinions that is both simple and clear. It must be restricted to the information of interest and propose recommendations for action (Dagenais and Ridde, 2018 ; Cairney and Oliver, 2020 ).

In the case of a workshop, sending the policy brief in advance facilitates the use of its information (Dagenais and Ridde, 2018 ). The results tend to be considered further since the information will already have been acknowledged prior to the workshop, leaving enough time during for it to be discussed with other stakeholders. These findings are in line with Langer’s report ( 2016 ), which suggested that interventions using a combination of evidence use mechanisms, such as communication of the evidence and interactions between stakeholders, are associated with an increased probability of being successful.

Why policy briefs were chosen

In the interest of sharing key lessons from research more effectively, it is essential to improve communication tools aimed at decision-making environments (Oliver and Boaz, 2019 ). In recent years, policy briefs have seen an increase in use as a way to inform or influence decision-making (Tessier et al., 2019 ). The policy brief was the chosen scope in this study as it is the most commonly used term referring to information-packaging documents. Indeed, a study of the nomenclature used in information-packaging efforts to support evidence-informed policymaking in low to middle income countries determined that “policy brief” was the most frequently used label (39%) to describe such a document (Adam et al., 2014 ). However, there are many different terms related to such a synthesized document, including the technical note, policy note, evidence brief, evidence summary, research snapshot, etc. (Dagenais and Ridde, 2018 ). Although these different terms were searched, the term “policy briefs” will be used in this paper.

Furthermore, policy briefs are postulated as a less intimidating form of research synthesis for policymakers, as opposed to systematic reviews. They offer key information on a given subject based on a systematic yet limited search of the literature for the most important elements. The policy brief is a first step into evidence, leading to further questioning and reading rather than providing a definitive report of what works (Nutley et al., 2013 ).

How should evidence use be measured?

The idea that evidence should be used to inform decision-making, rather than to determine what should be done, leads to questioning the way that evidence use should be measured (Hawkins and Pakhurst, 2016 ). What constitutes good use of evidence does not necessarily lead to the recommendations being applied. A policymaker might read the evidence but ultimately decide not to apply the recommendations due to taking into consideration a series of other factors such as the interests of other stakeholders and the limited resources available (Oliver and Boaz, 2019 ).

While the evidence may not have been used in decision-making, it was still used to inform (Hawkins and Pakhurst, 2016 ). The term evidence- based policy, implying that decision-making should depend on the body of research found, has been transitioning in the last few years to evidence- informed policy (Oxman et al., 2009 ; Nutley et al., 2019 ). This change reflects a new perspective of looking at research communication processes rather than solely the results and impact of the evidence use on decision-making. It sheds light into the current issues characterizing the know-do gap while also recognizing the political nature of the decision-making process.

Therefore, as a guide to evaluate the use of evidence by decision-makers, the instrumental, conceptual and persuasive use of policy briefs by decision-makers will be used. This approach allows for a more holistic view of evidence use and to determine more specifically in which ways policymakers use research evidence

The instrumental use refers to the direct use of the policy brief in the decision-making process. The conceptual use refers to the use of the policy brief to better understand a problem or a situation. The symbolic, or persuasive use, refers to the use of the policy brief to confirm or justify a decision or a choice, which has already been made (Anderson et al., 1999 ). This framework is based on the idea that good use of evidence should not rely solely on the following decisions taken by policymakers, but also on the manner in which these decisions were taken and how the evidence was identified, interpreted and considered to better inform the parties involved (Hawkins and Pakhurst, 2016 ).

In policy contexts, instrumental use of research is relatively rare while conceptual and strategic use tend to be more common (Boaz et al., 2018 ). However, evidence on the use and effectiveness of policy briefs more specifically as a knowledge transfer tool remains unclear. Previous reviews, such as Petkovic et al., ( 2016 ), have researched the use of systematic review summaries in decision-making and the policy-maker’s perspective towards the summaries in terms of understanding, knowledge and beliefs. Other articles have studied the barriers and facilitators to policymakers using systematic review summaries (Oliver et al., 2014 ; Tricco et al., 2015 ). It remains unknown under which circumstances does a policy brief elicit changes in attitude, knowledge and intention to use. Hence, this study will report what is known about whether policy briefs are considered effective by decision-makers, how policy briefs are used by decision-makers and which components of policy briefs were considered useful.

Therefore, the objectives of this study were to (1) identify evidence about the use of policy briefs and (2) identify which elements of content made for an effective policy brief. The first objective includes the perceived appreciation and the different types of use (instrumental, conceptual, persuasive) and the factors linked to use. The second objective includes the format, the context and the quality of the evidence.

This study used the scoping review method by Arksey and O’Malley ( 2005 ). A scoping study is a synthesis and analysis of a broad range of research material aimed at quickly mapping the key concepts underpinning a wider research area that has not been reviewed comprehensively before and where several different study designs might be relevant (Arksey and O’Malley, 2005 ; Mays et al., 2001 ). This allows to provide a greater conceptual clarity on a specific topic (Davis, et al., 2009 ). A scoping study, as opposed to other kinds of systematic reviews, is less likely to address a specific research question or to assess the quality of included studies. Scoping studies tend to address broader topics where many different study designs might be applicable (Arksey and O’Malley, 2005 ). They do not reject studies based on their research designs.

This method was chosen to assess the breadth of knowledge available on the topic of short documents synthesizing research results and their usage by policymakers. Scoping reviews allow a greater assessment of the extent of the current research literature since the inclusion and exclusion criteria are not exhaustive.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

The policy brief must have been presented to the target users; policymakers. A policymaker refers to a person responsible for devising regulations and laws. In this paper, the term policymaker will be used along with the term decision-maker, which is characterized more broadly as any entity who, such as health system managers, could benefit from empirical research to make a decision. For this paper, we did not differentiate between types or levels of policymakers. Stakeholders involved in the decision-making process related to a large jurisdiction or organization for which policy briefs were provided were included. As an example, papers were rejected if the participants were making decisions for an individual person or a patient. Articles were accepted if other user types were included as participants, as long as policymakers or decision-makers were included as users. This was decided because many papers included a variety of participants and if the feedback given by policymakers would have been different from other decision-makers, it would have been explained in the article.

Type of document

Articles were included when decision-makers had to assess a short document synthesizing research results. Given that many different terms are used to describe short research syntheses, the articles were identified using terms such as policy briefs, evidence summaries, evidence briefs and plain language summaries. The full list can be found in Table 1 .

Evaluations of systematic reviews were rejected as they are often written using technical language and can be lengthy (Moat et al., 2014 ). Furthermore, past research has evaluated the use and effectiveness of systematic reviews in policy. Given that this paper sought to evaluate short synthesized documents as a technical tool for knowledge transfer, any form of lengthy reports or reviews were excluded.

Rapid reviews were rejected due to their commissioned nature and the large breadth of literature available on their subject. Rapid reviews and commissioned research were excluded because they are different in a fundamental aspect: they are made as a direct response to a request from decision-makers. Since these papers are commissioned, there is already an intended use of these papers by decision-makers, as opposed to the use of non-commissioned papers. The expectations and motivations of these decision-makers in using these research results will be different. For these reasons, rapid reviews and commissioned research were excluded.

Articles were mostly excluded for being only examples of policy briefs, for not testing empirically the effectiveness of a policy brief, for testing another type of knowledge transfer tool (ex: deliberative dialogs) or for not having decision-makers as participants.

Type of study

All empirical studies were included, meaning qualitative, quantitative and mixed-methods. Any type of literature review such as systematic reviews were excluded to avoid duplication of studies and to allow an equal representation of all included studies. This prevented the comparison between the results of a systematic review and the results of one case study. Systematic reviews were however scanned for any study respecting the criteria to be added into the scoping review.

Empirical studies were eligible based on the implementation of a policy brief and the assessment of its use by decision-makers. Outcomes of interest were the use and effectiveness of policy briefs according to decision-makers, as well as the preferred type of content and format of such documents. These results were either reported directly by the decision-makers or through observations by the researchers. Articles were included if the policy brief was reviewed in any sort of way, whether through the participants giving their opinion on the policy brief or any commentary on the way the policy brief had been acknowledged. Articles were not excluded for not assessing a specific type of use. Examples of policy briefs and articles limited to the creation process of a policy brief and articles without any evaluations of the use of policy brief were not included, as no empirical evidence was used to back up what the authors considered made a policy brief effective.

Search strategy

To identify potentially eligible studies, literature searches have been conducted using PsycNET, PubMed, Web of Science and Embase from February 2018 to May 2019 in an iterative process. The search strategy was conceived in collaboration with a specialist in knowledge and information management. The scoping review’s objectives were discussed until four main concepts were identified. Related words to the four main concepts of the scoping study were searched with APA Thesaurus, these concepts being: (1) policy brief, (2) use, (3) knowledge transfer and (4) policymaker. The first term was used to find articles about the kind of summarized paper being evaluated. The second term was used to find articles discussing the ways these papers were used or discussing their effectiveness. Without this search term, many articles were simply mentioning policy briefs without evaluating them. The third term referred to the policy brief’s intent and to the large domain of knowledge transfer to get more precise research results into this field. The fourth search term allowed for the inclusion of the desired participants.

Different keywords for the concept of policy brief (any short document summarizing research results) were found through the literature and were also created using combinations of multiple keywords (e.g., research brief and evidence summary were combined to create research summary). The different concepts were then combined in the databases search engines until a point of saturation was reached and no new pertinent articles were found.

Study selection

Following the removal of duplicates, the articles were selected by analyzing the titles. If they seemed pertinent, the abstracts were then read. The remaining articles were verified by two authors to assess their eligibility, were read in their entirety and possibly eliminated if they did not respect the established criteria.

Data extraction

Once the articles were selected, summary sheets were created to extract data systematically. The factors recorded were the intended audience of the paper, the journal of publication, the objectives of the research, the research questions, a summary of the introduction, the variables researched, the type of research synthesis used in the study and a description of the document, information on sampling (size, response rate, type of participants, participants’ country, sampling method), the type of users reading the document (ex: practitioners, policymakers, consumers), a description of the experimentation, the research design, the main results found and the limits identified in the study.

Data analyses

Based on the extracted information compiled in the summary sheets, the data was taken from those summary sheets and separated into the two objectives of this study, which are (1) the evidence of policy brief use and (2) the elements of content that contributed to their effectiveness. Further themes were outlined based on the results, which formed the main findings. When more than one study had the same finding, the additional sources would be indicated. Similarly, any contradicting findings were also noted.

Literature search

Four-thousand nine-hundred four unique records were retrieved, of which 215 were screened on full text. In total, 22 articles were included in this scoping study. The number of studies in each step of the literature review process are shown in Fig. 1 .

A diagram of the number of records identified, included and excluded in the article.

Study characteristics

The year of publication ranged from 2007 to 2018, with 50% of the articles having been published in the last 5 years.

The studies spanned 35 countries, with the most common being conducted in Canada ( n  = 5), others being conducted in Burkina Faso ( n  = 2), the United States ( n  = 2), Netherlands ( n  = 1), Wales ( n  = 1), Thailand ( n  = 1), Nigeria ( n  = 1), Uganda ( n  = 1), Kenya ( n  = 1) and Israel ( n  = 1). Six studies were conducted in multiple countries Footnote 1 . Of the included studies, 12 took place in a total of 23 low to middle income countries, according to the World Bank Classification ( 2019 ).

Case studies were the most common design (59%), followed by descriptive studies (27%) and randomized controlled trials (14%). Five studies used quantitative research methods, eight were qualitative methods and nine used mixed-methods. For more details, Table 2 presents an overview of the characteristics of selected studies.

Primary objective: use of policy briefs

Appreciation of policy briefs.

The perception of decision-makers regarding policy briefs is a starting point to evaluate if more work should be put into its format to meet the needs of decision-makers or if it should go into communicating the importance of evidence-informed methods to decision-makers.

Of all the eligible studies, 19 (86%) found it useful or had a general appreciation towards policy briefs as a tool for knowledge transfer by decision-makers. Two studies (Kilpatrick et al., 2015 ; Orem et al., 2012 ) did not report about the perceived usefulness or appreciation of such a document and one study (de Goede et al., 2012 ) had policy actors declare they found the document of no importance and neglected it during the policy process. Many participants reported throughout the various studies that taking into consideration the available evidence would help improve decision-making (El-Jardali et al., 2014 ; Marquez et al., 2018 ; Vogel et al., 2013 ).

Types of use of policy briefs

The use of the policy brief in the decision-making process was assessed through its instrumental use, conceptual use and persuasive use.

In regard to instrumental use, many policymakers claimed to have used evidence to inform their decision-making, even sometimes going as far as actively seeking out policy briefs and improving their ability to assess and use research evidence (El-Jardali et al., 2014 ; Jones and Walsh, 2008 ). Policy briefs seem to oftentimes be used as a starting point for deliberations on policies and to facilitate the discussions with policy actors on definitions and solutions to multiple problems (Ellen et al., 2016 ; de Goede et al., 2012 ; Jones and Walsh, 2008 ; Suter and Armitage, 2011 ; Ti et al., 2017 ). Although policy briefs have helped in identifying problems and solutions in their communities, policymakers reported also relying on other sources of information, such as other literature, colleagues and their own knowledge (Goede et al., 2012 ; Suter and Armitage, 2011 ). When it comes to putting recommendations into action, policymakers may be more inclined to report intentions to take into consideration and apply the recommendations when the solutions offered require little effort or co-operation from others (Beynon et al., 2012 ).

Policy briefs are most commonly used conceptually, which is no surprise given that it is the type of use requiring the least commitment. They allow decision-makers to better understand the different facets of a situation, to inform policymaking and raise awareness on certain issues (Campbell et al., 2009 ; El-Jardali et al., 2014 ; Ellen et al., 2016 ; Goede et al., 2012 ; Suter and Armitage, 2011 ). A better comprehension of a situation can also lead to a change of beliefs in certain circumstances. Beynon et al. ( 2012 ) found that reading a policy brief lead to creating evidence-accurate beliefs more commonly amongst those with no prior opinion. The policy brief was not as effective in changing the beliefs of respondents who had an opinion on the issue before reading the brief.

Few studies reported the persuasive use of policy briefs. One study reported policy briefs being used to support prior beliefs such as good timing for specific policies and to allow the progression of information before publication in order to make sure it is aligned with national health policies (de Goede et al., 2012 ). Policy briefs can be seen as an effective tool for advocacy when the objective is to convince other stakeholders of a position using evidence-based research (Ti et al., 2017 ). However, one study had policymakers claim that although research needs to be used more, rarely will they use research to inform policy agendas or to evaluate the impacts of a policy (Campbell et al., 2009 ). Thus, it remains unclear whether policy briefs are often used in a persuasive way.

Factors linked to use

Decision-makers are more inclined to report intentions and actual follow-up actions that require little effort or co-operation from others although globally, women are less likely to claim that they will do follow-up actions than men (Beynon et al., 2012 ). The same study reported that a higher level of self-perceived influence predicts a higher level of influence and those readers are more inclined to act. Furthermore, decision-makers were most likely to use policy briefs if they were directly targeted by the subject of the evidence (Brownson et al., 2011 ).

Dissemination strategies are specific methods of distributing information to key parties with the intention of having the reader process that information. A policy brief could be very well written and have all the necessary information but if it is not properly shared with the intended audience, it might not be read. One effective dissemination strategy appreciated by policymakers is to send the policy briefs a few weeks before a workshop (Mc Sween-Cadieux et al., 2018 ) as well as an individualized email in advance of the policy brief (Ellen et al., 2016 ; Kilpatrick et al., 2015 ). Asking policymakers to be a part of the presentation of the briefs and to arrange a follow-up meeting to receive feedback on the documents was also viewed favorably (Kilpatrick et al., 2015 ).

Secondary objective: elements of content contributing to the effectiveness of policy briefs

Decision-makers often report the language of researchers being too complex, inaccessible, lacking clarity and commonly using overly technical terms (Marquez et al., 2018 ; Mc Sween-Cadieux et al., 2017 ; Rosenbaum et al., 2011 ). They prefer the use of simple and jargon-free language in clear, short sentences (Ellen et al., 2014 ; Jones and Walsh, 2008 ; Kilpatrick et al., 2015 ; Schmidt et al., 2014 ; Vogel et al., 2013 ). Some decision-makers have reported having difficulty understanding the objectives in the policy brief and finding the document too long (Jones and Walsh, 2008 ; Marquez et al., 2018 ; Mc Sween-Cadieux et al., 2017 ). They appreciate the emphasis to be on the advantages of the policy brief and for it to be constructed around a key message to draw the reader and disseminate the critical details. Multiple articles recommended policy briefs not to go over one to two pages, with references to more detailed findings so the reader can investigate further (Dobbins et al., 2007 ; Ellen et al., 2014 ; Kilpatrick et al., 2015 ; Marquez et al., 2018 ; Suter and Armitage, 2011 ).

Furthermore, policy briefs need to be visually engaging. Since policymakers spend on average 30 to 60 min reading information about a particular issue, it is a challenge to present the information in such a way to make them go for the policy brief (Jones and Walsh, 2008 ). Information can be displayed in different ways to be more memorable such as charts, bullets, graphs and photos (Ellen et al., 2014 ; Marquez et al., 2018 ; Mc Sween-Cadieux et al., 2018 ). One research study has reported that an overly esthetic document may seem expensive to produce, which can lead to policymakers wondering why funding was diverted from programs to the production of policy briefs (Schmidt et al., 2014 ). Another study found that “graded-entry” formats, meaning a short interpretation of the main findings and conclusions, combined with a short and contextually framed narrative report, followed by the full systematic review, were associated with a higher score for clarity and accessibility of information compared to systematic reviews alone (Opiyo et al., 2013 ). However, the exact format of the document does not seem to be as important for policymakers as its clarity. Indeed, policymakers do not appear to have a preference between electronic and hard copy formats (Dobbins et al., 2007 ; Kilpatrick et al., 2015 ; Marquez et al., 2018 ). This is also shown by another case study, where policymakers preferred the longest version of a policy brief, one easier to scan, leading to believe that a longer text may not necessarily be the condemnation of a policy brief, as long as it is written in an easily scannable way with small chunks of information dispersed through the document (Ellen et al., 2014 ).

Context-related

There is a preference for local information over global information by decision-makers (Brownson et al., 2011 ; Jones and Walsh, 2008 ; Orem et al., 2012 ). It allows for local council members to identify relevant issues in their communities as well as responses tailored to the socio-political nature of the issue, such as cultural values, historical-political sensitivities and election timing (de Goede et al., 2012 ; Jones and Walsh, 2008 ). Authors of policy briefs, depending on the study, must consider the latest insights as well as the complex power relations underpinning the policy process when writing their recommendations. The issue of the policy brief has a significant impact on whether it can influence the views of decision-makers. To have a better grasp on the relevance of the topic, policymakers want to have the data put into context instead of simply presenting the facts and statistics (Schmidt et al., 2014 ). Furthermore, such research needs to be transmitted in a time-sensitive matter to remain relevant (Ellen et al., 2016 ; Marquez et al., 2018 ; Orem et al., 2012 ; Rosenbaum et al., 2011 ; Uneke et al., 2015 ).

Given the time pressures on policymakers to make rapid and impactful decisions, the use of actionable, evidence-informed recommendations acknowledging the specific situation are much appreciated by policymakers. Decision-makers wish for realistic recommendations on an economic and strategic plan. They dislike a policy brief that is too general and without any propositions of concrete action (Mc Sween-Cadieux et al., 2017 ; de Goede et al., 2012 ). Indeed, many policymakers claim that not concluding with recommendations is the least helpful feature for policy briefs (Moat et al., 2014 ). They prefer that the document provides more guidance on which actions should be taken and the steps to take as well as the possible implementations (Marquez et al., 2018 ; Mc Sween-Cadieux et al., 2017 ). However, it can also be a barrier to use if the content of the policy brief is not in line with the policy-maker’s system belief (de Geode et al., 2012 ).

Quality evidence

Quality, compelling evidence must be provided to facilitate the use of policy brief by decision-makers (Jones and Walsh, 2008 ). Therefore, it is required to know what kind of arguments are needed to promote research in the decision-making process. Although information about the situation and its context is appreciated, policymakers prefer having some guidance on what to do with such information afterwards. Some policymakers have reported a lack of details on the strategies to adopt, the tools to use and the processes required that would otherwise lead to a successful integration of the ideas proposed in the policy brief (Marquez et al., 2018 ; Suter and Armitage, 2011 ). There is a particular interest in detailed information about local applicability or costs, outcome measurements, broader framing of the research (Ellen et al., 2014 ; Rosenbaum et al., 2011 ), clear statements of the implication for practice from health service researchers (Dobbins et al., 2007 ), information about patient safety, effectiveness and cost savings (Kilpatrick et al., 2015 ).

On the other hand, less emphasis should be put on information steering away from important results. One study showed that researchers should more often than not forego acknowledgements, forest plot diagrams, conflicts of interest, methods, risk of bias, study characteristics, interventions that showed no significant effect and statistical information (e.g., confidence interval) (Marquez et al., 2018 ). Surprisingly, policymakers tend to prefer data-centered arguments rather than story-based arguments, the former containing data percentages and the latter containing personal stories (Brownson et al., 2011 ; Schmidt et al., 2014 ), hinting that the use of emotions might not be the most effective method in convincing policymakers to adopt research into their decision-making. However, a certain subjectivity is appreciated. Indeed, policymakers value researchers’ opinions about the policy implications of their findings (Jones and Walsh, 2008 ). Beynon et al. ( 2012 ) found that policy briefs, including an opinion piece acquire significance over time, possibly indicating that the effect of the opinion piece trickles in slowly.

Legitimacy however does not emerge solely from good evidence and arguments, but also from the source of those arguments, more specifically the authors involved. Policymakers specified that they pay attention to the authors of policy briefs and that it influences their acceptance of the evidence and arguments presented (Jones and Walsh, 2008 ). Authoritative messages were considered a key element of an effective policy brief. This is confirmed by Beynon et al. ( 2012 ), who found a clear authority effect on readers’ intentions to send the policy brief to someone else. Readers were more likely to share briefs with a recommendation from an authoritative figure rather than a recommendation from an unnamed researcher. It can be considered an obstacle to the use of the document if the latter is not perceived as coming from a credible source (Goede et al., 2012 ). Authoritative institutions, research groups and experts have been identified as the best mediators between researchers and decision-makers (Jones and Walsh, 2008 ).

The objectives of this study were to identify what the literature has concluded about the use of policy briefs and which elements made for an effective one.

The results showed that policy briefs were considered generally useful, easy to understand and credible, regardless of the group, the issue, the features of the brief or the country tested. Different types of use were assessed, notably the instrumental, conceptual and persuasive use. Many policymakers claimed to use the evidence given in their decision-making process, some even reporting an increased demand for knowledge transfer products by policymakers. This fact and the surge of knowledge transfer literature in the past few years might suggest that policy briefs and other short summaries of research could become a more commonly used tool in the next years for the decision-making process in policy. Given that policymakers oftentimes rely on multiple sources of information and that policy briefs facilitated discussions between different actors, future interventions should aim to combine a policy brief with other mechanisms of evidence use (Langer et al., 2016 ).

One factor linked to a greater use of policy briefs was the dissemination strategies. Arranging a meeting with policymakers following the reading of the document to receive feedback is a good strategy to get the policymakers to read attentively and consider the content of the policy brief (Kilpatrick et al., 2015 ). A greater implication by policymakers seems to encourage the use of the policy brief. This supports the findings of Langer et al. ( 2016 ) concerning interaction as a mechanism to promote evidence use. Indeed, improved attitudes towards evidence were found after holding joint discussions with other decision-makers who were motivated to apply the evidence. Increasing motivation to use research evidence through different techniques such as the framing and tailoring of the evidence, the development of policymakers’ skills in interpreting evidence and better access to the evidence could lead to an increase in evidence-informed decision-making (Langer et al., 2016 ). Instead of working independently, it has been often proposed that researchers and policymakers should work in collaboration to increase the pertinence and promote the use of evidence (Gagliardi et al., 2015 ; Langer et al., 2016 ). The collaboration between policymakers and researchers would allow researchers to better understand policymakers’ needs and the contexts in which the evidence is used, thus providing a well-tailored version of the document for a greater use for those in need of evidence-informed results (Boaz et al., 2018 ; Langer et al., 2016 ). However, multiple barriers are present to the collaboration between researchers and decision-makers, such as differing needs and priorities, a lack of skill or understanding of the process and attitudes towards research (Gagliardi et al., 2015 ). Furthermore, different dilemmas come into play when considering how much academics should engage in policymaking. Although recommendations are often made for researchers to invest time into building alliances with policymakers and getting to know the political context, there is no guarantee that these efforts will lead to the expected results. Influencing policy through evidence advocacy requires engaging in different networks and seeing windows of opportunity, which may blur the line between scientists and policymakers (Cairney and Oliver, 2020 ). To remain neutral, researchers should aim to listen to the needs of policymakers and inform them of new evidence, rather than striving to have policymakers use the evidence in a specific way.

When policymakers considered the policy brief of little importance for their decision-making, it could be partially explained by the fact that the document shared was not aligned with the groups’ belief systems (de Goede et al., 2012 ). Similarly, Beynon et al. ( 2012 ) had found that policy briefs are not as effective in changing opinions in respondents who held previous beliefs rather than forging an opinion on a new topic. Being presented with information opposite of one’s belief can be uncomfortable. This cognitive dissonance can influence the level of acceptance of new information, which can affect its use. To return to a feeling of consistency with their own thoughts, policymakers could easily discard a policy brief opposing their beliefs. The use of policy briefs is, therefore, determined largely by the type of audience and whether they agree with the content. To improve the acceptance, the policy brief should strive to be aligned with the needs of policymakers. This implies that when creating and disseminating the evidence, researchers must consider their audience. Therefore, there is no “one-size-fits-all” and a better solution to improve the use of research is to communicate information based on the type of policymaker (Brownson et al., 2011 ; Jones and Walsh, 2008 ).

These results should lead researchers to first determine who is the targeted audience and how can the format of the policy brief be attractive to them. Different versions of policy briefs can be made according to the different needs, priorities and positions of varying policy actors (Jones and Walsh, 2008 ). Furthermore, people directly targeted by the content of the evidence are more likely to read the policy brief. In the knowledge to action cycle, it seems essential to have a clear picture of who will be reading the policy brief and what kind of information to provide as a way to better reach them.

The lack of recommendations was cited as being the least helpful feature of evidence briefs (Moat et al., 2014 ). This, along with other studies claiming the importance of clear recommendations could lead to believe that policymakers prefer an advocacy brief rather than a neutral brief (Goede et al., 2012 ; Marquez et al., 2018 ; Mc Sween-Cadieux et al., 2017 ). However, this brings the question of impartiality in research (Cairney and Oliver, 2017 ). The purpose of policy briefs and generally of knowledge transfer is to gather the best evidence and to disseminate it in a way to assure that it has an impact. Science is seen as neutral and providing only the facts, yet policymakers ask for precise recommendations and opinions. This seeming contradiction leads to wondering whether researchers should offer their opinion and how much co-production with policymakers should they be involved in to align the results with the policymakers’ agenda (Cairney and Oliver, 2017 ).

The credibility of the messenger is also an important factor in the decision-maker’s use of the document. Briefs were more likely to be shared when associated with an authoritative figure than with an unnamed research fellow. This authority effect may be due to the brief becoming more memorable when associated with an authoritative figure, which leads to a greater likelihood for the policymakers to share that message with other people (Beynon et al., 2012 ). Another possible explanation is the trust associated with authority. The results have shown that policymakers tend to forego the information about conflicts of interest, methodology, risks of bias and statistics. In other words, the details that would show the legitimacy of the data. Instead, they prefer going straight to the results and recommendation. This could lead to believe that policymakers would prefer to read a paper coming from a reputable source that they can already trust, so they can focus on analyzing the content rather than the legitimacy of it. Thus, the partnering between authoritative institutions, researchers and policymakers could help not only to better target the needs of policymakers but also to improve the legitimacy of the message communicated through the brief, in an effort to help policymakers focus more on the information being shared (Jones and Walsh, 2008 ).

Strengths and limitations

The use of all the similar terms related to policy briefs in the search strategy allowed for a wide search net during the literature search process, leading to finding more studies. Another strength was the framework assessing both the types of use and the format of the policy brief preferred by policymakers, which allowed a better understanding of the place policy briefs currently have in policymaking as well as an explanation of different content factors related to its use. As knowledge transfer is becoming a pillar in organizations across the globe, there remains however a gap in the use of research in decision-making. This review will enable researchers to better adapt the content of their research to their audience when writing a policy brief by adjusting the type of information that should be included in the document. One limit of the present scoping study is its susceptibility to a sampling bias. Although the articles assessed for eligibility were verified by two authors, the first records identified through database searching were carried out by a single author. The references of the selected articles were not searched systematically to find additional articles. This scoping study also does not assess the quality of the selected studies and evaluation since its objective is to map the current literature on a given subject.

Although the quality of the chosen articles was not assessed, it is possible to notice a few limits in their method, which can be found in the Table 2 . There is also something to be said about publication bias, meaning that papers with positive results tend to be published in greater proportion than papers failing to prove their hypotheses.

Furthermore, few studies determined the actual use or effect of the policy brief in decision-making but instead assessed self-reported use of the policy brief or other outcomes, such as perceived credibility or relevance of those briefs, since these may affect the likelihood of research use in decision-making. Few studies reported the persuasive use of policy briefs. This could be explained by the reticence of participants to report such information due to the implications that they would use research results only to further their agenda rather than using them to make better decisions, or simply because researchers did not question the participants on such matters. Although the inclusion criteria of this study were fairly large, it is worth noting that the number of selected articles was fairly low, with only 22 studies included. Further research on persuasive research would need to assess researchers’ observations rather than self-reported use by policymakers. Since the current research has shown that policy briefs could be more useful in creating or reinforcing a belief, future studies could assess the actual use of policy briefs in decision-making.

The findings indicate that while policy briefs are generally valued by decision-makers, it is still necessary for these documents to be written with the end reader in mind to meet their needs. Indeed, an appreciation towards having a synthesized research document does not necessarily translate to its use, although it is a good first step given that it shows an open-mindedness of decision-makers to be informed by research. Decision-making is a complex process, of which the policy brief can be one step to better inform the decision-makers on the matter at hand. A policy brief is not a one-size-fits-all solution to all policy-making processes. Evidence can be used to inform but it might not be able to, on its own, fix conflicts between the varying interests, ideas and values circulating the process of policymaking (Hawkins and Pakhurst, 2016 ). Since credibility is an important factor for decision-makers, researchers will have to take into consideration the context, the authors associated with writing policy briefs and the actors that will play a lead role in promoting better communication between the different stakeholders.

Given that the current literature on the use of policy briefs is not too extensive, more research needs to be done on the use of such documents by policymakers. Future studies should look into the ways researchers can take the context into consideration when writing a policy brief. It would also be interesting to search whether different formats are preferred by policymakers intending to use evidence in different ways. Furthermore, there are other types of summarized documents that were excluded in this scoping review such as rapid reviews, or even different formats such as infographics. The use of commissioned summaries could be an interesting avenue to explore, as the demand for these types of documents from policymakers would ensure their use in a significant manner.

Data availability

All data analyzed in this study are cited in this article and available in the public domain.

The studies were conducted in Zambia ( n  = 3), Uganda ( n  = 3), South Africa ( n  = 2), Argentina ( n  = 2), China ( n  = 2), Cameroon ( n  = 2), Cambodia ( n  = 1), Norway ( n  = 2), Ethiopia ( n  = 2), India ( n  = 1), Ghana ( n  = 1), Nicaragua ( n  = 1), Bolivia ( n  = 1), Brazil ( n  = 1), England ( n  = 1), Wales ( n  = 1), Finland ( n  = 1), Germany ( n  = 1), Burkina Faso ( n  = 1), Italy ( n  = 1), Scotland ( n  = 1), Spain ( n  = 1), Mozambique ( n  = 1), Bangladesh ( n  = 1), Nigeria ( n  = 1), Central African Republic ( n  = 1), Sudan ( n  = 1), Colombia ( n  = 1) and Australia ( n  = 1).

Adam T, Moat KA, Ghaffar A, Lavis JN (2014) Towards a better understanding of the nomenclature used in information-packaging efforts to support evidence-informed policymaking in low-and middle-income countries. Implement Sci 9(1):67

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Anderson M, Cosby J, Swan B, Moore H, Broekhoven M (1999) The use of research in local health service agencies. Soc Sci Med 49(8):1007–1019

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Arcury TA, Wiggins MF, Brooke C, Jensen A, Summers P, Mora DC, Quandt SA (2017) Using “policy briefs” to present scientific results of CBPR: farmworkers in North Carolina. Prog Commun Health Partnerships: Res Educ Action 11(2):137

Article   Google Scholar  

Arksey H, O’Malley L (2005) Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol 8(1):19–32

Baekgaard M, Christensen J, Dahlmann CM, Mathiasen A, Petersen NBG (2019) The role of evidence in politics: motivated reasoning and persuasion among politicians. Br J Polit Sci 49(3):1117–1140

Beynon P, Chapoy C, Gaarder M, Masset, E (2012) What difference does a policy brief make? Full report of an IDS, 3ie, Norad study: Institute of Development Studies and the International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie)

Boaz A, Hanney S, Borst R, O’Shea A, Kok M (2018) How to engage stakeholders in research: design principles to support improvement. Health Res Policy Syst 16(1):60

Brownson RC et al. (2011) Communicating evidence-based information on cancer prevention to state-level policy makers. J Natl Cancer Inst 103(4):306–316

Cairney P, Heikkila T, Wood M (2019) Making policy in a complex world (1st edn.). Cambridge University Press

Cairney P, Kwiatkowski R (2017) How to communicate effectively with policymakers: Combine insights from psychology and policy studies. Palgrave Commun 3(1):37

Cairney P, Oliver K (2017) Evidence-based policymaking is not like evidence-based medicine, so how far should you go to bridge the divide between evidence and policy? Health Res Policy Syst 15:1

Cairney P, Oliver K (2020) How should academics engage in policymaking to achieve impact? Polit Stud Rev 18(2):228–244

Cambridge University Press (2019) Definition of a policymaker. https://dictionary.cambridge.org . Accessed 2019

Campbell DM et al. (2009) Increasing the use of evidence in health policy: Practice and views of policy makers and researchers. Aust N Z Health Policy 6(21):1–11

Google Scholar  

Dagenais C, Ridde V (2018) Policy brief (PB) as a knowledge transfer tool: To “make a splash”, your PB must first be read. Gaceta Sanitaria

Davis K, Drey N, Gould D (2009) What are scoping studies? A review of the nursing literature. Int J Nurs Stud 46(10):1386–1400

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Dobbins M, Jack S, Thomas H, Kothari A (2007) Public Health Decision-Makers’ informational needs and preferences for receiving research evidence. Worldview Evid-Based Nurs 4(3):156–163

El-Jardali F, Lavis J, Moat K, Pantoja T, Ataya N (2014) Capturing lessons learned from evidence-to-policy initiatives through structured reflection. Health Res Policy Syst 12(1):1–15

Ellen M et al. (2014) Health system decision makers’ feedback on summaries and tools supporting the use of systematic reviews: A qualitative study. Evid Policy 10(3):337–359

Ellen ME, Horowitz E, Vaknin S, Lavis JN (2016) Views of health system policymakers on the role of research in health policymaking in Israel. Israel J Health Policy Res 5:24

de Goede J, Putters K, Van Oers H (2012) Utilization of epidemiological research for the development of local public health policy in the Netherlands: a case study approach. Soc Sci Med 74(5):707–714

Gagliardi AR, Berta W, Kothari A, Boyko J, Urquhart R (2015) Integrated knowledge translation (IKT) in health care: a scoping review. Implementation. Science 11(1):38

Hawkins B, Parkhurst J (2016) The ‘good governance’ of evidence in health policy. Evid Policy 12(4):575–592

Huang W, Tan CL (2007) A system for understanding imaged infographics and its applications. In Proceedings of the 2007 ACM symposium on Document engineering, Association for Computing Machinery, Seoul, pp 9–18

Jones N, Walsh C (2008) Policy briefs as a communication tool for development research. ODI Background Note. ODI, London

Keepnews DM (2016) Developing a policy brief. Policy Polit Nurs Pract 17(2):61–65

Khangura S, Konnyu K, Cushman R, Grimshaw J, Moher D (2012) Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach. Syst Rev 1:10

Kilpatrick K et al. (2015) The development of evidence briefs to transfer knowledge about advanced practice nursing roles to providers, policymakers and administrators. Nurs Leadership (Toronto, Ont.) 28(1):11–23

Koon AD, Rao KD, Tran NT, Abdul G (2013) Embedding health policy and systems research into decision-making processes in low- and middle-income countries. Health Res Policy Syst 18:9

Langer L, Tripney J, Gough D (2016) The science of using science: researching the use of research evidence in decision-making. Social Science Research Unit, & Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre

Lavis JN, Posada FB, Haines A, Osei E (2004) Use of research to inform public policymaking. Lancet 364(9445):1615–1621

Lavis JN et al. (2012) Guidance for evidence-informed policies about health systems: linking guidance development to policy development. PLoS Med 9:3

Liverani M, Hawkins B, Parkhurst JO (2013) Political and institutional influences on the use of evidence in public health policy. A systematic review. PLoS ONE 8(10):e77404

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Marquez C, Johnson AM, Jassemi S, Park J, Moore JE, Blaine C, Straus SE (2018) Enhancing the uptake of systematic reviews of effects: What is the best format for health care managers and policy-makers? A mixed-methods study. Implement Sci 13(1):84

Mays N, Roberts E, Popay J (2001) Synthesising research evidence. In: Fulop N, Allen P, Clarke A, Black N (eds) Studying the organisation and delivery of health services: research methods. Routledge, London, pp. 188–220

Mays N, Pope C, Popay J (2005) Systematically reviewing qualitative and quantitative evidence to inform management and policy-making in the health field. J Health Serv Res Policy 10(Suppl 1):6–20

Mc Sween-Cadieux E, Dagenais C, Somé PA, Ridde V (2017) Research dissemination workshops: Observations and implications based on an experience in Burkina Faso. Health Res Policy Syst 15(1):1–12

Mc Sween-Cadieux E, Dagenais C, Ridde V (2018) A deliberative dialogue as a knowledge translation strategy on road traffic injuries in Burkina Faso: a mixed-method evaluation. Health Res Policy Syst 16(1):1–13

Moat KA, Lavis JN, Clancy SJ, El-Jardali F, Pantoja T (2014) Evidence briefs and deliberative dialogues: perceptions and intentions to act on what was learnt. Bull World Health Organiz 20:8

Moore GM, Redman S, Turner T, Haines M (2016) Rapid reviews in health policy: a study of intended use in the New South Wales’ Evidence Check programme. Evid Policy 12(46):505–519

Nutley S, Boaz A, Davies H, Fraser A (2019) New development: What works now? Continuity and change in the use of evidence to improve public policy and service delivery. Public Money Manage 39(4):310–6

Nutley S, Powell AE, Davies HTO (2013) What counts as good evidence, Alliance for Useful Evidence, London

Oliver K, Boaz A (2019) Transforming evidence for policy and practice: creating space for new conversations. Palgrave Commun 5(1):1

Oliver K, Cairney P (2019) The dos and don’ts of influencing policy: a systematic review of advice to academics. Palgrave Commun 5(1):21

Oliver KA, de Vocht F (2017) Defining ‘evidence’ in public health: a survey of policymakers’ uses and preferences. Eur J Public Health 1(27 May):112–7

Oliver K, Innvar S, Lorenc T, Woodman J, Thomas J (2014) A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers. BMC Health Serv Res 14(1):2

Opiyo N, Shepperd S, Musila N, Allen E, Nyamai R, Fretheim A, English M (2013) Comparison of alternative evidence summary and presentation formats in clinical guideline development: a mixed-method study. PLoS ONE 8:1

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Orandi BJ, Locke JE (2020) Engaging policymakers to disseminate research. In: Dimick J., Lubitz C. (eds) Health Serv Res. Springer, Cham, pp. 283–288

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Orem JN, Mafigiri DK, Marchal B, Ssengooba F, Macq J, Criel B (2012) Research, evidence and policymaking: The perspectives of policy actors on improving uptake of evidence in health policy development and implementation in Uganda. BMC Public Health 12(1):109

Oxman AD, Lavis JN, Lewin S, Fretheim A (2009) SUPPORT Tools for evidence informed health policymaking (STP) 1: What is evidence-informed policymaking? Health Res Policy Syst 7:S1

Petkovic J, Welch V, Jacob MH, Yoganathan M, Ayala AP, Cunningham H, Tugwell P (2016) The effectiveness of evidence summaries on health policymakers and health system managers use of evidence from systematic reviews: a systematic review. Implement Sci 11(1):1–14

Rajabi F (2012) Evidence-informed Health Policy Making: the role of policy brief. Int J Prevent Med 3(9):596–598

Rosenbaum SE, Glenton C, Wiysonge CS, Abalos E, Mignini L, Young T, Oxman AD (2011) Evidence summaries tailored to health policy-makers in low- and middle-income countries. Bull World Health Organ 89(1):54–61

Schmidt AM, Ranney LM, Goldstein AO (2014) Communicating program outcomes to encourage policymaker support for evidence-based state tobacco control. Int J Environ Res Public Health 11(12):12562–12574

Suter E, Armitage GD (2011) Use of a knowledge synthesis by decision makers and planners to facilitate system level integration in a large Canadian provincial health authority. Int J Integr Care, 11. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3107086 . Accessed 2019

Tessier C, Tessier C, Centre de collaboration nationale sur les politiques publiques et la santé (2019) The policy brief: a tool for knowledge transfer. http://collections.banq.qc.ca/ark:/52327/4002463 . Accessed 2020

Ti L, Hayashi K, Ti L, Kaplan K, Suwannawong P, Kerr T (2017) ”Knowledge translation to advance evidence-based health policy in Thailand. Evid Policy 13(4):723–731

Tricco AC, Antony J, Straus SE (2015) Systematic reviews vs. rapid reviews: What’s the difference? CADTH Rapid Review Summit

Uneke CJ, Ebeh Ezeoha A, Uro-Chukwu H, Ezeonu CT, Ogbu O, Onwe F, Edoga C (2015) ”Promoting evidence to policy link on the control of infectious diseases of poverty in Nigeria: outcome of a multi-stakeholders policy dialogue. Health Promot Perspect 5(2):104–115

Uzochukwu B, Onwujekwe O, Mbachu C, Okwuosa C, Etiaba E, Nyström ME, Gilson L (2016) The challenge of bridging the gap between researchers and policy makers: experiences of a Health Policy Research Group in engaging policy makers to support evidence informed policy making in Nigeria. Glob Health 12(1):1–15

van de Goor I, Hämäläinen RM, Syed A, Lau CJ, Sandu P, Spitters H, Karlsson LE, Dulf D, Valente A, Castellani T, Aro AR (2017) Determinants of evidence use in public health policy making: Results from a study across six EU countries. Health policy 121(3):273–81

Vogel JP, Oxman AD, Glenton C, Rosenbaum S, Lewin S, Gülmezoglu AM, Souza JP (2013) Policymakers' and other stakeholders' perceptions of key considerations for health system decisions and the presentation of evidence to inform those considerations: an international survey. Health Res Policy Syst 11(1):1–9

Wilson MG, Lavis JN, Gauvin FP (2015) Developing a rapid-response program for health system decision-makers in Canada: findings from an issue brief and stakeholder dialogue. Syst Rev 4(25):1–11

Wong SL, Green LA, Bazemore AW, Miller BF (2017) How to write a health policy brief. Fam Syst Health 35(1):21–24

World Bank (2019) Classification of low- and middle- income countries. https://data.worldbank.org/income-level/low-and-middle-income . Accessed 2020

World Health Organization (2004) Knowledge for better health: strengthening health systems. Ministerial Summit on Health Research:16-20

Yang CC, Chen H, Honga K (2003) Visualization of large category map for internet browsing. Decision Supp Syst 35(1):89–102

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Julie Desnoyers for her collaboration on developing the search strategy, Stéphanie Lebel for extracting data on the selected articles and Valéry Ridde for peer-reviewing the article. This study was conducted as part of the first author’s doctoral training in industrial-organizational psychology. The candidate received financial support from Équipe RENARD, a research team studying knowledge transfer, which is led by Christian Dagenais and funded by the FRQSC.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Psychology, University of Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada

Diana Arnautu & Christian Dagenais

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Diana Arnautu .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Arnautu, D., Dagenais, C. Use and effectiveness of policy briefs as a knowledge transfer tool: a scoping review. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 8 , 211 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00885-9

Download citation

Received : 24 February 2020

Accepted : 25 February 2021

Published : 13 September 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00885-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Disseminating health research to public health policy-makers and practitioners: a survey of source, message content and delivery modality preferences.

• Sam McCrabb
• Luke Wolfenden

Health Research Policy and Systems (2023)

Comparing two federal financing strategies on penetration and sustainment of the adolescent community reinforcement approach for substance use disorders: protocol for a mixed-method study

• Alex R. Dopp
• Sarah B. Hunter
• Jonathan Purtle

Implementation Science Communications (2022)

When the messenger is more important than the message: an experimental study of evidence use in francophone Africa

• Amandine Fillol
• Esther McSween-Cadieux
• Valéry Ridde

Health Research Policy and Systems (2022)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Advertisement

The Governance of University Knowledge Transfer: A Critical Review of the Literature

• Review Article
• Published: 18 March 2009
• Volume 47 , pages 93–114, ( 2009 )

Cite this article

• Aldo Geuna 1 , 2 , 3 &
• Alessandro Muscio 4 , 5  

7425 Accesses

314 Citations

3 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Universities have long been involved in knowledge transfer activities. Yet the last 30 years have seen major changes in the governance of university–industry interactions. Knowledge transfer has become a strategic issue: as a source of funding for university research and (rightly or wrongly) as a policy tool for economic development. Universities vary enormously in the extent to which they promote and succeed in commercializing academic research. The identification of clear-cut models of governance for university–industry interactions and knowledge transfer processes is not straightforward. The purpose of this article is to critically discuss university knowledge transfer models and review the recent developments in the literature on research collaborations, intellectual property rights and spin-offs, those forms of knowledge transfer that are more formalized and have been institutionalized in recent years. The article also addresses the role played by university knowledge transfer organizations in promoting commercialization of research results.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

The Policy Mix to Promote University-Industry Knowledge Transfer: A Conceptual Framework

Technology Transfer: The Change of European Governance of Research from a Private Law Perspective

Research Policy as “Carrots and Sticks”: Governance Strategies in Australia, the United Kingdom and New Zealand

See, among others, the following Special issues for references: Science and Public Policy 21, 1994 ; STI Review 23, 1998 ; Research Policy 29(2), 2000 ; Management Science 48, 2002 ; International Journal of Industrial Organization 21, 2003 ; Economics of Innovation and New Technology 16(2), 2007 ; Industrial and Corporate Change 16(4), 2007c ; Oxford Review of Economic Policy 23(4), 2007 ; Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 63(4), 2007 .

In this context, government was willing to pay for the teaching related part of the universities’ activities, but not the traditional “40% research” part automatically associated with teaching positions in most European HE systems.

E.g., in Arundel and Geuna ( 2004 ), “publications” is rated as the most important method for learning about public research outputs by the largest proportion of firms, 24%, followed closely by “hiring trained staff”, 21%, and “informal contacts”, 18%. While the figures presented are weighted and unweighted by R&D, the results show an evenly distributed importance for the different channels for learning about public research outputs. The figures in this text refer to the unweighted results.

The coexistence of various types of KTOs is exemplified by the case of the UK where there are two professional associations: AURIL (Association for University Research and Industry Links) and UNICO (The University Companies Association). The former includes organizations concerned with knowledge transfer in general, while the latter tends to be more representative of TTOs focused on exploitation of IPRs and creation of spin-offs.

For examples of the relative weight of the various channels of knowledge transfer, see the results of the UK Higher Education-Business and Community Interaction (HE-BCI) survey and Muscio ( 2008 ) for Italy.

We want to thank an anonymous referee for this specific information.

Similar to Germany, in Hungary KT activities are assigned to the Bay Zoltan Institute.

As the NUBS ( 2003 ) report shows, based on data from 125 UK HEI for the year 2002, 45% of HEIs made no new patent applications (the mean number of patent applications/HEI was 9) and 67% of HEI did not have a patent issued in 2002.

See, e.g. among others, Thursby and Thursby ( 2002 ) and Bercovitz and Feldman ( 2004 ), who examine the patterns of invention disclosure from university researchers to TTOs, patent applications and licences from universities; Feldman et al. ( 2002 ) examine equity positions in companies as payment for the use of university IP; Di Gregorio and Shane ( 2003 ) examine the frequency of establishment of new firms to exploit university-assigned IP; Friedman and Silberman ( 2003 ) investigate the number of licences and level of licensing income generated by universities.

See also Special Issue of Geuna and Mowery ( 2007 ).

The authors conducted a study on the history of the Stanford University liaison office’s management of the patenting and licensing of the first major biotechnology process patent, the Cohen-Boyer patent for recombinant DNA (USPTO #4,2337,224; December 1980). The recombinant DNA technology resulted in the production of 2,442 known products and the foundation of hundreds of small biotech firms.

Agrawal, Ajay, and Rebecca Henderson. 2002. Putting patents in context: Exploring knowledge transfer from MIT. Management Science 48: 44–60.

Article   Google Scholar  

Antonelli, Cristiano. 2008. The new economics of the university: A knowledge governance approach. Journal of Technology Transfer 33: 1–22.

Arnold, Erik, Niel Brown, Annelie Eriksson, Tommy Jansson, Alessandro Muscio, Johanna Nählinder, and Rapela Zaman. 2006. The Role of Industrial Research Institutes in the National Innovation System: A Report to VINNOVA, Technopolis.

Arundel, Anthony, and Aldo Geuna. 2004. Proximity and the use of public science by innovative European firms. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 13(6): 559–580.

Azoulay, Pierre, Waverly Ding, and Toby Stuart. 2007. The determinants of faculty patenting behavior: Demographics or opportunities? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organizations 63(4): 599–623.

Bercovitz, Janet, and Maryann Feldman. 2004. Academic entrepreneurs: Social learning and participation in university technology transfer . Durham: The Fuqua School of Business and Rootman School of Management, Durham University.

Google Scholar  

Bercovitz, Janet, and Maryann Feldman. 2007. Fishing upstream: Firm innovation strategy and university research alliances. Research Policy 36: 930–948.

Bozeman, Barry, Maria Papadakis, and Karen Coker. 1995. Industry perspectives on commercial interactions with federal laboratories: Does the cooperative technology paradigm really work? Report to the National Science Foundation. Research on Science and Technology Program.

Breschi, Stefano, and Francesco Lissoni. 2001. Knowledge spillovers and local innovation systems: A critical survey. Industrial and Corporate Change 10(4): 975–1005.

Breschi, Stefano, Francesco Lissoni, and Fabio Montobbio. 2007. The scientific productivity of academic inventors: New evidence from Italian data. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 16(2): 101–118.

Calderini, Mario, and Giuseppe Scellato. 2005. Academic research, technological specialization and the innovation performance in European regions: An empirical analysis in the wireless sector. Industrial and Corporate Change 14(2): 279–305.

Calderini, Mario, Chiara Franzoni, and Andrea Vezzulli. 2007. If star scientists do not patent: The effect of productivity, basicness and impact on the decision to patent in the academic world. Research Policy 36: 303–319.

Carayol, Nicolas. 2007. Academic incentives, research organization and patenting at a large French university. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 16(2): 119–138.

Chapple, Wendy, Andy Lockett, Donald Siegel, and Mike Wright. 2005. Assessing the Relative Performance of UK University Technology Transfer Offices: Parametric and Non-Parametric Evidence. Research Policy 34(3): 369–384.

Chukumba, Celestine, and Richard Jensen. 2005. University invention, entrepreneurship and start-ups, NBER. Working Paper Series, Working Paper 11475.

Cohen, Wesley, Richard R. Nelson, and John P. Walsh. 2002. Links and impacts: The Influence of public research on industrial R&D. Management Science 48(1): 1–23.

Cohen, Linda R., and Roger G. Noll. 1994. Privatizing public research. Scientific American 271(3): 72–77.

Colyvas, Jeannette, Michael Crow, Annetine Gelijns, Roberto Mazzoleni, Richard R. Nelson, Nathan Rosenberg, and Bhaven N. Sampat. 2002. How do university inventions get into practice? Management Science 48(1): 61–72.

Cooke, Philip, Mikel G. Uranga, and Goio Etxebarria. 1998. Regional systems of innovation: An evolutionary perspective. Environment and Planning 30(9): 1563–1584.

Crespi, Gustavo, Pablo D’Este, Roberto Fontana, and Aldo Geuna. 2009. The impact of academic patenting on university research and its transfer. ICER Working Paper N001.09.

Crespi, Gustavo, Aldo Geuna, and Bart Verspagen. 2006. University IPRs and knowledge transfer. Is the IPR ownership model more efficient? SPRU Electronic Working Paper Series Paper 154.

David, Paul A. 2004. Can ‘Open Science’ be protected from the evolving regime of intellectual property rights protections? Journal of Theoretical and Institutional Economics 160: 1–26.

D’Este, Pablo, and Pari Patel. 2007. University–industry linkages in the UK: What are the factors underlying the variety of interactions with industry? Research Policy 36: 1295–1313.

Di Gregorio, Dante, and Scott Shane. 2003. Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others? Research Policy 32(2): 209–227.

Elfenbein, Daniel W. 2007. Publications, patents, and the market for university inventions. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 63: 688–715.

Etzkowitz, Henry. 1983. Entrepreneurial Scientists and entrepreneurial universities in American academic science. Minerva 21: 198–233.

Etzkowitz, Henry, and Loet Leydesdorff. 2000. The dynamics of innovation: from national systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy 20: 109–123.

Eurostat. 2004. Innovation in Europe: Results for the EU, Iceland and Norway. European Commission.

Fabrizio, Kira R., and Alberto Di Minin. 2008. Commercializing the laboratory: Faculty patenting and the open science environment. Research Policy 38: 914–931.

Feldman, Maryann, Alessandra Colaianni, and Kang Liu. 2007. Lessons from the commercialization of the Cohen-Boyer patents: The Stanford University Licensing Program, in intellectual property management. In Health and agricultural innovation: A handbook of best practices , ed. Krattiger Anatole, Richard T. Mahoney, Lita Nelsen et al. MIHR: Oxford, UK, and PIPRA: Davis, USA

Feldman, Maryann P., and Pierre Desrochers. 2003. Research universities and local economic development: Lessons from the history of the Johns Hopkins University. Industry and Innovation 10(1): 5–24.

Feldman, Maryann P., Irwin Feller, Janet Bercowitz, and Richard Burton. 2002. Equity and the technology transfer strategies of American research universities. Management Science 48(1): 105–121.

Fisher, Donald, and Janet Atkinson-Grosjean. 2002. Brokers on the boundary: Academy-industry liaison in Canadian universities. Higher Education 44: 449–467.

Florida, Richard. 2002. The economic geography of talent. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 92(4): 743–755.

Fontana, Roberto, Aldo Geuna, and Mireille Matt. 2006. Factors affecting university–industry R&D projects: The importance of searching, screening and signalling. Research Policy 35: 309–323.

Friedman, Joseph, and Jonathan Silberman. 2003. University technology transfer: Do incentives, management and location matter? Journal of Technology Transfer 28: 17–30.

Furman, Jeffrey L., and Megan J. MacGarvie. 2007. Academic science and the birth of industrial research laboratories in the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 63: 756–776.

Geuna, Aldo. 1999. The Economics of knowledge production: Funding and the structure of university research . Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Geuna, Aldo, and Lionel Nesta. 2003. University patenting and its effects on academic research. SEWPS No. 99, Sussex University, Brighton.

Geuna, Aldo, and Lionel Nesta. 2006. University patenting and its effects on academic research: The emerging European evidence. Research Policy 35: 790–807.

Gibbons, Michael, Camille Limoges, Helga Nowotny, Simon Schwartzman, Peter Scott, and Martin Trow. 1994. The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies . London: Sage.

Gulbrandsen, Magnus, and Jens-Christian Smeby. 2005. Industry funding and university professors’ research performance. Research Policy 34: 932–950.

Hellmann, Thomas. 2007. The role of patents for bridging the science to market gap. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 63: 624–647.

Istituto per la Promozione Industriale (IPI). 2005. Indagine sui Centri per l’Innovazione e il Trasferimento Tecnologico in Italia, Dipartimento Centri e Reti Italia, Direzione Trasferimento di Conoscenza e Innovazione. Roma: Novembre

Jaffe, Adam. 1989. Real effects of academic research. American Economic Review 79: 957–978.

Laursen, Keld, and Ammon Salter. 2004. Searching high and low: What types of firms use universities as a source of innovation? Research Policy 33: 1201–1215.

Leitch, Claire, and Richard Harrison. 2005. Maximising the potential of university spin-outs: The development of second-order commercialisation activities. R&D Management 35(3): 257–272.

Link, Albert N., and John T. Scott. 2007. The economics of university research parks. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 23(4): 620–639.

Lissoni, Francesco, Patrick Llerena, Maureen McKelvey, and Bulat Sanditov. 2007. Academic patenting in Europe: New evidence from the KEINS Database. Università Commerciale Luigi Bocconi, CESPRI Working Paper 202.

Litan, Robert E., Lesa Mitchell, and E.J. Reedy. 2007. Commercializing university innovations: Alternative approaches. SSRN, http://ssrn.com/abstract=976005 .

Lockett, Andy, and Mike Wright. 2005. Resources, capabilities, risk capital and the creation of university spin-out companies. Research Policy 34: 1043–1057.

Markman, Gideon, Peter Gianiodis, and Philip H. Phan. 2008. Full-time faculty or part-time entrepreneurs. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 55(1): 29–36.

Markman, Gideon, Peter Gianiodis, Philip H. Phan, and David B. Balkin. 2005. Innovation speed: Transferring university technology to market. Research Policy 34(7): 1058–1075.

Mazzoleni, Roberto. 2005. University patents, R&D competition and social welfare. Economics of Innovation & New Technology 14(6): 499–515.

Meyer-Thurow, Georg. 1982. The industrialization of invention: A case study from the German Chemical Industry. Isis 73(3): 363–381.

Mohnen, Pierre, and Cathy Hoareau. 2003. What type of enterprise forges close links with universities and government labs? Evidence from CIS 2. Managerial and Decision Economics 24(2–3): 133–145.

Murray, Fiona. 2005. Exchange relationships & cumulative innovation: Standing on the shoulders of the oncomouse—MIT Economic Sociology. Seminar Toronto, University of Toronto.

Murray, Fiona. 2004. The role of academic inventors in entrepreneurial firms: Sharing the laboratory life. Research Policy 33: 643–659.

Murray, Fiona, and Scott Stern. 2007. Do formal intellectual property rights hinder the free flow of scientific knowledge? An empirical test of the anti-commons hypothesis. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 63(4): 648–687.

Muscio, Alessandro. 2008. Il Trasferimento Tecnologico in Italia: Risultati di un’indagine sui Dipartimenti Universitari, L’Industria, Numero Speciale.

Nelson, Richard R. 2004. The market economy, and the scientific commons. Research Policy 33: 455–471.

Nonaka, Ikujiro, and Hirotaka Takeuchi. 1995. The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation . New York: Oxford University Press.

BS, N.U. 2003. UK University Commercialisation Survey: Financial Year 2002 . Nottingham: Nottingham University Business School.

O’Gorman, Colm, Orna Byrne, and Dipti Pandya. 2008. How scientists commercialise new knowledge via entrepreneurship. Journal of Technology Transfer 33: 23–43.

Rothaermel Frank, T., Shanti Agung, and Lin Jiang. 2007. University entrepreneurship: A taxonomy of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change 16(4): 691–791.

Siegel, Donald S., and Philip Phan. 2005. Analyzing the effectiveness of university technology transfer: Implications for entrepreneurship education. In Advances in the study of entrepreneurship, innovation, and economic growth , vol. 16, ed. G. Liebcap. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science/JAI Press.

Siegel, Donald S., Mike Wright, and Andy Lockett. 2007a. The rise of entrepreneurial activity at universities: Organizational and societal implications. Industrial and Corporate Change 16(4): 489–504.

Siegel, Donald S., David A. Waldman, Leanne E. Atwater, and Albert N. Link. 2003. Commercial knowledge transfers from universities to firms: Improving the effectiveness of university–industry collaboration. Journal of High Technology Management Research 14(1): 111–133.

Siegel, Donald S., David Waldman, Leanne Atwater, and Albert N. Link. 2004. Toward a model of the effective transfer of scientific knowledge from academicians to practitioners: Qualitative evidence from the commercialization of university technologies. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 21(1–2): 115–142.

Siegel, Donald S., Reinhilde Veugelers, and Mike Wright. 2007b. Technology transfer offices and commercialization of university intellectual property: Performance and policy implications. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 23(4): 640–660.

Thursby, Jerry G., Anne W. Fuller, and Marie C. Thursby. 2009. US faculty patenting: Inside and outside the university. Research Policy 38(1): 14–25.

Thursby, Marie, Jerry Thursby, and Swasty Gupta-Mukherjee. 2007. Are there real effects of licensing on academic research? A life cycle view. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 63: 577–598.

Thursby, Jerry G., and Marie C. Thursby. 2002. Who is selling the ivory tower? Sources of growth in university licensing. Management Science 48(1): 90–104.

Thursby, Jerry G., and Marie C. Thursby. 2007. University licensing. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 23(4): 620–639.

Valentin, Finn, and Rasmus Lund Jensen. 2006. Effects on academia–industry collaboration of extending university property rights. The Journal of Technology Transfer 32(3): 251–276.

Van Looy, Bart, Julie Callaert, and Koenraad Debackere. 2006. Publication and patent behavior of academic researchers: Conflicting, reinforcing or merely co-existing? Research Policy 35(4): 596–608.

Varga, Attila. 1998. University research and regional innovation: A spatial econometric analysis of academic knowledge transfer . Boston: Kluwer.

Special issues

Webster, Andrew. ed. 1994. Special issue on academic–industry relations. Science and Public Policy 21(2).

Geuna, Aldo, and David Mowery. eds. 2007. Special issue: Production and dissemination of academic knowledge. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 16(2).

Jaffe, Adam, Josh Lerner, Scott Stern, and Marie Thursby. eds. 2007. Special issue: Academic science and entrepreneurship: Dual engines of growth. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 63(4).

Link, Albert N., and David Roessner. eds. 2000. Special Issue: The economics of technology policy. Research Policy 29(4–5).

Link, Albert N., John T. Scott, and Donald S. Siegel. eds. 2003. Special issue: The economics of intellectual property at universities. International Journal of Industrial Organization 21(9).

Mowery, David C., and Scott Shane. eds. 2002. Special issue on university entrepreneurship and technology transfer. Management Science 48(1).

OECD. ed. 1998. Special Issue on public/private partnerships in science and technology. STI—Science, Techology Industry Review 23.

Siegel, Donald S., and Mike Wright. eds. 2007. Special issue: Intellectual property. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 23(4).

Siegel, Donald S., Mike Wright, and Andy Lockett. eds. 2007c. Special issue: The rise of entrepreneurial activity at universities: Organizational and societal implications. Industrial and Corporate Change 16(4).

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to Cristiano Antonelli, Pablo D’Este, Ben Martin and Ed Steinmueller for comments and suggestions. Some of the ideas presented in this article result from Aldo Geuna’s role as Rapporteur in the CREST OMC-3% Expert Group (European Commission, DG Research) on the topic “Encourage the reform of public research centres and universities”, and his teaching and discussions over the last 10 years, with students on “The Political Economy of Science Policy” course at SPRU. The article has also benefited from the comments and specific suggestions from two anonymous referees. All mistakes and omissions, and the views expressed, remain the sole responsibility of the authors. Aldo Geuna acknowledges the support from the International Centre for Economic Research (ICER), Turin (I). Alessandro Muscio acknowledges the financial support of the Italian Ministry of University and Research (Progetto FIRB: “ Un approccio multidimensionale al trasferimento tecnologico ”).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Economics S. Cognetti De Martiis, University of Torino, Via Po 53, 10124, Torino, Italy

BRICK, Collegio Carlo Alberto, Torino, Italy

SPRU, The Freeman Centre, University of Sussex, Brighton, BN1 9QE, UK

GRIF, Università Luiss Guido Carli, Viale Romania, 32-00197, Rome, Italy

Alessandro Muscio

Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche, Matematiche e Statistiche, University of Foggia, Largo Papa Giovanni Paolo II, 1, 71100, Foggia, Italy

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aldo Geuna .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Geuna, A., Muscio, A. The Governance of University Knowledge Transfer: A Critical Review of the Literature. Minerva 47 , 93–114 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-009-9118-2

Download citation

Received : 28 August 2008

Accepted : 12 February 2009

Published : 18 March 2009

Issue Date : March 2009

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-009-9118-2

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• European universities
• Knowledge transfer
• Intellectual property
• Knowledge transfer organization
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Knowledge Transfer in Theory and Practice: A Guide to the Literature

A brief guide to the issues of Knowledge Transfer, taking into account the variety of terminology, methods, and subjects.

Related Papers

Dianne Hall

International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences

Noor Alia Hanim Hassan

WTZ-Süd Working Paper

Markus Hayden

'Knowledge transfer' is a topic of general interest, being one of the key links between the research arena and both practice and civil society, yet it has attracted scant scholarly attention. Furthermore, prior research on knowledge transfer has typically focused on particular aspects, leading to the investigation of specific topics, such as exploitation, and of specific groups, such as researchers. Therefore, based on our previous research, the current study attempts to widen the scope of enquiry by interviewing experts in the field of knowledge transfer from both inside and outside of academia. This paper gives an insight into our research strategy and presents the preliminary findings that have been obtained from the first 12 interviews.

Advances in Methodology and Statistics

Helena Kovačič

Learning theory proposes that learning outcomes depend on the characteristics of actors involved in the process. Network theory adds additional dimension to studying learning process. According to several network scholars, relations between learning actors also affect their behaviour and performance. We present a framework for knowledge transfer process that allows a study of how results of a transfer are affected by the characteristics of source and recipient and connections between them. We apply this model to the survey of learning process within two European projects leading to different outcomes of the process. Results of the survey reveal close connection between the two sets of indicators and point to the holistic approach to examining knowledge transfer process.

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A

Catherine Herfeld

Sajjad Mohammed Jasimuddin

Saša Rađenović

Theoretical Frameworks and Empirical Research

Denis St Jacques

… and institutions in regional innovation systems. …

Bart Nooteboom

Abstract: A central feature of innovation systems is that innovation arises from interaction between organizational units. This requires&#x27; cognitive distance&#x27;that is sufficiently large to yield novelty of combinations, but not too large for mutual understanding. Two problems and solutions in the transfer of knowledge, especially to small firms, are identified and discussed. There is a problem not only of expressing tacit knowledge, but also of absorbing new knowledge when it needs to replace existing tacit knowledge. Next to issues of learning or ...

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

Richard Moreland

RELATED PAPERS

Ngozi Ezenagu

TELP/WA : 0822.3006.6162, Jual Box Fiberglass untuk Distribusi, Jual Box Fiberglass untuk Bakery, Jual Box Fiberglass untuk Pembasmi Hama

harun fajar ardiansyah

BMC Health Services Research

Katherine Montpetit-tourangeau

Kalliokoski

Brazilian Journal of Development

Endocrine reviews

Elisabet Stener-Victorin

Freiburger Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Theologie

International Journal of Travel, Hospitality and Events

Ni Made Ernawati

加急办理cus毕业证书 美国西雅图城市大学毕业证荣誉学位证书原版一模一样

International Journal of Chemical Reactor Engineering

euis sustini

Journal of thermal analysis

Marek Maciejewski

Oxford Economic Papers

加急制作诺丁汉大学毕业证 unuk毕业证本科文凭证书托福成绩单原版一模一样

Leda Goncalves Fernandes (Machado)

Revista eletrônica de Farmácia

Nilson Carlos Pereira

Physical Review Letters

Giuseppe Santoro

买canterbury毕业证书 新西兰坎特伯雷大学毕业证学位证书文凭学历认证原版一模一样

Psychotherapy and Politics International

Nick Totton

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Knowledge transfer and exchange: review and synthesis of the literature

Affiliation.

• 1 University of British Columbia Okanagan, Kelowna, BC. [email protected]
• PMID: 18070335
• PMCID: PMC2690353
• DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2007.00506.x

Knowledge transfer and exchange (KTE) is as an interactive process involving the interchange of knowledge between research users and researcher producers. Despite many strategies for KTE, it is not clear which ones should be used in which contexts. This article is a review and synthesis of the KTE literature on health care policy. The review examined and summarized KTE's current evidence base for KTE. It found that about 20 percent of the studies reported on a real-world application of a KTE strategy, and fewer had been formally evaluated. At this time there is an inadequate evidence base for doing "evidence-based" KTE for health policy decision making. Either KTE must be reconceptualized, or strategies must be evaluated more rigorously to produce a richer evidence base for future activity.

Publication types

• Meta-Analysis
• Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
• Decision Making
• Diffusion of Innovation*
• Evidence-Based Medicine*
• Health Policy*
• Health Services Research
• Information Dissemination

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar

information for practice

news, new scholarship & more from around the world

• gary.holden@nyu.edu
• @ Info4Practice

What is context in knowledge translation? Results of a systematic scoping review

Knowledge Translation (KT) aims to convey novel ideas to relevant stakeholders, motivating their response or action to improve people’s health. Initially, the KT literature focused on evidence-based medicine, …

Read the full article ›