2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Characteristics of knowledge translation platforms and methods for evaluating them: a scoping review protocol

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          Knowledge translation platforms (KTPs) are intermediary organisations, initiatives or networks whose intent is to bridge the evidence into action divide. Strategies and tools include collaborative knowledge production, capacity building, information exchange and dialogue to facilitate relevant and timely engagement between researchers and decision-makers and other relevant stakeholders. With the wide range of definitions and descriptions of KTPs, there is a need to (1) provide a nuanced understanding of characteristics of KTPs and (2) assess and consolidate research methods used in mapping and evaluating KTPs to inform standardised process and impact evaluation.

          Methods and analysis

          This scoping review will follow the recommended and accepted methods for scoping reviews and reporting guidelines. Eligibility for inclusion is any conceptual or empirical health-related qualitative, quantitative and/or mixed method studies including (1) definitions, descriptions and models or frameworks of KTPs (including those that do not self-identify as KTPs, eg, university research centres) and (2) research methods for mapping and/or evaluating KTPs. Searches will be carried out in PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, Embase, Global Health and Web of Science using a predetermined search strategy, without any date, language or geographical restrictions. Two reviewers will independently screen titles and abstracts. One reviewer will complete data extraction for all included studies, and another will check a sample of 50% of the included studies. The analysis and synthesis will provide (1) an understanding of the various characteristics of KTPs; (2) insight into characteristics or factors that make them resilient and/or adaptive to facilitate impact (ie, influence policy and practice); and (3) an overview of the various methods for mapping and evaluating KTPs. We will explore enhancing an existing framework for classifying KTPs, or perhaps even developing a new framework for identifying and monitoring KTPs if necessary and relevant.

          Ethics and dissemination

          This scoping review does not require ethics approval, as we will only include information from previously conducted studies and we will not involve human participants. The results will be submitted to a peer-reviewed scientific journal for publication and as conference presentations.

          Related collections

          Most cited references28

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation

          Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Defining knowledge translation.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2022
                15 June 2022
                : 12
                : 6
                : e061185
                Affiliations
                [1 ]departmentSchool of Public Health, Faculty of Community and Health Sciences , University of the Western Cape , Cape Town, South Africa
                [2 ]departmentCochrane South Africa , South African Medical Research Council , Cape Town, South Africa
                [3 ]departmentCentre for Evidence-based Health Care, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences , Stellenbosch University , Cape Town, South Africa
                [4 ]departmentDepartment of International Health , Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health , Baltimore, Maryland, USA
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr Bey-Marrie Schmidt; bschmidt@ 123456uwc.ac.za
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1363-171X
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9894-236X
                Article
                bmjopen-2022-061185
                10.1136/bmjopen-2022-061185
                9204454
                35705347
                99192427-3e10-4ee7-b5c9-6c67ab363df6
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See:  http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 18 January 2022
                : 13 May 2022
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100001322, South African Medical Research Council;
                Award ID: No award/grant number
                Award ID: Research Capacity Development Initiative
                Categories
                Health Policy
                1506
                1703
                Protocol
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                Medicine
                health policy,public health,organisational development
                Medicine
                health policy, public health, organisational development

                Comments

                Comment on this article