Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

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.

Https

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.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Feb 14;15(1):11.
doi: 10.1186/s13012-020-0964-5.

A scoping review of full-spectrum knowledge translation theories, models, and frameworks

Rosmin Esmail  1   2   3   4 , Heather M Hanson  1   2 , Jayna Holroyd-Leduc  1   2   3   4   5 , Sage Brown  1   6 , Lisa Strifler  7   8 , Sharon E Straus  7   9 , Daniel J Niven  1   2   3   10 , Fiona M Clement  11   12   13
Affiliations

A scoping review of full-spectrum knowledge translation theories, models, and frameworks

Rosmin Esmail et al. Implement Sci. .

Abstract

Background: Application of knowledge translation (KT) theories, models, and frameworks (TMFs) is one method for successfully incorporating evidence into clinical care. However, there are multiple KT TMFs and little guidance on which to select. This study sought to identify and describe available full-spectrum KT TMFs to subsequently guide users.

Methods: A scoping review was completed. Articles were identified through searches within electronic databases, previous reviews, grey literature, and consultation with KT experts. Search terms included combinations of KT terms and theory-related terms. Included citations had to describe full-spectrum KT TMFs that had been applied or tested. Titles/abstracts and full-text articles were screened independently by two investigators. Each KT TMF was described by its characteristics including name, context, key components, how it was used, primary target audience, levels of use, and study outcomes. Each KT TMF was also categorized into theoretical approaches as process models, determinant frameworks, classic theories, implementation theories, and evaluation frameworks. Within each category, KT TMFs were compared and contrasted to identify similarities and unique characteristics.

Results: Electronic searches yielded 7160 citations. Additional citations were identified from previous reviews (n = 41) and bibliographies of included full-text articles (n = 6). Thirty-six citations describing 36 full-spectrum were identified. In 24 KT TMFs, the primary target audience was multi-level including patients/public, professionals, organizational, and financial/regulatory. The majority of the KT TMFs were used within public health, followed by research (organizational, translation, health), or in multiple contexts. Twenty-six could be used at the individual, organization, or policy levels, five at the individual/organization levels, three at the individual level only, and two at the organizational/policy level. Categorization of the KT TMFs resulted in 18 process models, eight classic theories, three determinant frameworks, three evaluation frameworks, and four that fit more than one category. There were no KT TMFs that fit the implementation theory category. Within each category, similarities and unique characteristics emerged through comparison.

Conclusions: A systematic compilation of existing full-spectrum KT TMFs, categorization into different approaches, and comparison has been provided in a user-friendly way. This list provides options for users to select from when designing KT projects and interventions.

Trial registration: A protocol outlining the methodology of this scoping review was developed and registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018088564).

Keywords: Diffusion; Dissemination; Frameworks; Implementation; Knowledge translation; Models; Research utilization; Theories.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
PRISMA flowchart summarizing study review and inclusion
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Knowledge translation theories, models, and frameworks by level of use
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Categorization of full-spectrum knowledge translation theories, models, and frameworks (n = 36)
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Straus S, Tetro J, Graham I. Knowledge translation in health care. First Edition ed. Oxford: John Wiley and Sons; 2009.
    1. Straus S, Tetro J, Graham I. Knowledge translation in health care. Second Edition ed. Oxford: John Wiley and Sons; 2013.
    1. Canadian Institutes for Health Research. Knowledge translation. 2017. [Available from: http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/29529.html]. Accessed 12 Aug 2018.
    1. McKibbon K, Lokker C, Wilczynski N, Ciliska D, Dobbins M, Davis D, et al. A cross-sectional study of the number and frequency of terms used to refer to knowledge translation in a body of health literature in 2006: a Tower of Babel? Implementation science: IS. 2010;5(16):1-11. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Graham ID, Logan J, Harrison MB, Straus SE, Tetroe J, Caswell W, et al. Lost in knowledge translation: time for a map? J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2006;26(1):13–24. doi: 10.1002/chp.47. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms