A scoping review of theories, models and frameworks used or proposed to evaluate knowledge mobilization strategies
Abstract Background Evaluating knowledge mobilization strategies (KMb) presents challenges for organizations seeking to understand their impact to improve KMb effectiveness. Moreover, the large number of theories, models, and frameworks (TMFs) available can be confusing for users. Therefore, the pur...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2024-01-01
|
| Series: | Health Research Policy and Systems |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-023-01090-7 |
| _version_ | 1797355409091067904 |
|---|---|
| author | Saliha Ziam Sèverine Lanoue Esther McSween-Cadieux Mathieu-Joël Gervais Julie Lane Dina Gaid Laura Justine Chouinard Christian Dagenais Valéry Ridde Emmanuelle Jean France Charles Fleury Quan Nha Hong Ollivier Prigent |
| author_facet | Saliha Ziam Sèverine Lanoue Esther McSween-Cadieux Mathieu-Joël Gervais Julie Lane Dina Gaid Laura Justine Chouinard Christian Dagenais Valéry Ridde Emmanuelle Jean France Charles Fleury Quan Nha Hong Ollivier Prigent |
| author_sort | Saliha Ziam |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Background Evaluating knowledge mobilization strategies (KMb) presents challenges for organizations seeking to understand their impact to improve KMb effectiveness. Moreover, the large number of theories, models, and frameworks (TMFs) available can be confusing for users. Therefore, the purpose of this scoping review was to identify and describe the characteristics of TMFs that have been used or proposed in the literature to evaluate KMb strategies. Methods A scoping review methodology was used. Articles were identified through searches in electronic databases, previous reviews and reference lists of included articles. Titles, abstracts and full texts were screened in duplicate. Data were charted using a piloted data charting form. Data extracted included study characteristics, KMb characteristics, and TMFs used or proposed for KMb evaluation. An adapted version of Nilsen (Implement Sci 10:53, 2015) taxonomy and the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) taxonomy (Powell et al. in Implement Sci 10:21, 2015) guided data synthesis. Results Of the 4763 search results, 505 were retrieved, and 88 articles were eligible for review. These consisted of 40 theoretical articles (45.5%), 44 empirical studies (50.0%) and four protocols (4.5%). The majority were published after 2010 (n = 70, 79.5%) and were health related (n = 71, 80.7%). Half of the studied KMb strategies were implemented in only four countries: Canada, Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom (n = 42, 47.7%). One-third used existing TMFs (n = 28, 31.8%). According to the adapted Nilsen taxonomy, process models (n = 34, 38.6%) and evaluation frameworks (n = 28, 31.8%) were the two most frequent types of TMFs used or proposed to evaluate KMb. According to the ERIC taxonomy, activities to “train and educate stakeholders” (n = 46, 52.3%) were the most common, followed by activities to “develop stakeholder interrelationships” (n = 23, 26.1%). Analysis of the TMFs identified revealed relevant factors of interest for the evaluation of KMb strategies, classified into four dimensions: context, process, effects and impacts. Conclusions This scoping review provides an overview of the many KMb TMFs used or proposed. The results provide insight into potential dimensions and components to be considered when assessing KMb strategies. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-08T14:10:44Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-189d51a462104835a5b1885c63f3b62f |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1478-4505 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-08T14:10:44Z |
| publishDate | 2024-01-01 |
| publisher | BMC |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Health Research Policy and Systems |
| spelling | doaj.art-189d51a462104835a5b1885c63f3b62f2024-01-14T12:42:53ZengBMCHealth Research Policy and Systems1478-45052024-01-0122111810.1186/s12961-023-01090-7A scoping review of theories, models and frameworks used or proposed to evaluate knowledge mobilization strategiesSaliha Ziam0Sèverine Lanoue1Esther McSween-Cadieux2Mathieu-Joël Gervais3Julie Lane4Dina Gaid5Laura Justine Chouinard6Christian Dagenais7Valéry Ridde8Emmanuelle Jean9France Charles Fleury10Quan Nha Hong11Ollivier Prigent12School of Business Administration, Université TÉLUQDepartment of School and Social Adaptation Studies, Faculty of Education, Université de SherbrookeDepartment of School and Social Adaptation Studies, Faculty of Education, Université de SherbrookeDepartment of Psychology, Université du Québec à MontréalDepartment of School and Social Adaptation Studies, Faculty of Education, Université de SherbrookeSchool of Rehabilitation, Faculty of Medicine, Université de MontréalSchool of Business Administration, Université TÉLUQDepartment of Psychology, Université de MontréalUniversité Paris Cité, IRD (Institute for Research on Sustainable Development, CEPEDPublic Health Intelligence and Knowledge Translation Division, Public Health Agency of CanadaCoordinator of the Interregional Consortium of Knowledge in Health and Social Services (InterS4)School of Rehabilitation, Faculty of Medicine, Université de MontréalDepartment of School and Social Adaptation Studies, Faculty of Education, Université de SherbrookeAbstract Background Evaluating knowledge mobilization strategies (KMb) presents challenges for organizations seeking to understand their impact to improve KMb effectiveness. Moreover, the large number of theories, models, and frameworks (TMFs) available can be confusing for users. Therefore, the purpose of this scoping review was to identify and describe the characteristics of TMFs that have been used or proposed in the literature to evaluate KMb strategies. Methods A scoping review methodology was used. Articles were identified through searches in electronic databases, previous reviews and reference lists of included articles. Titles, abstracts and full texts were screened in duplicate. Data were charted using a piloted data charting form. Data extracted included study characteristics, KMb characteristics, and TMFs used or proposed for KMb evaluation. An adapted version of Nilsen (Implement Sci 10:53, 2015) taxonomy and the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) taxonomy (Powell et al. in Implement Sci 10:21, 2015) guided data synthesis. Results Of the 4763 search results, 505 were retrieved, and 88 articles were eligible for review. These consisted of 40 theoretical articles (45.5%), 44 empirical studies (50.0%) and four protocols (4.5%). The majority were published after 2010 (n = 70, 79.5%) and were health related (n = 71, 80.7%). Half of the studied KMb strategies were implemented in only four countries: Canada, Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom (n = 42, 47.7%). One-third used existing TMFs (n = 28, 31.8%). According to the adapted Nilsen taxonomy, process models (n = 34, 38.6%) and evaluation frameworks (n = 28, 31.8%) were the two most frequent types of TMFs used or proposed to evaluate KMb. According to the ERIC taxonomy, activities to “train and educate stakeholders” (n = 46, 52.3%) were the most common, followed by activities to “develop stakeholder interrelationships” (n = 23, 26.1%). Analysis of the TMFs identified revealed relevant factors of interest for the evaluation of KMb strategies, classified into four dimensions: context, process, effects and impacts. Conclusions This scoping review provides an overview of the many KMb TMFs used or proposed. The results provide insight into potential dimensions and components to be considered when assessing KMb strategies.https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-023-01090-7Knowledge mobilizationKnowledge translationTheories, models, and frameworksEvaluationScoping review |
| spellingShingle | Saliha Ziam Sèverine Lanoue Esther McSween-Cadieux Mathieu-Joël Gervais Julie Lane Dina Gaid Laura Justine Chouinard Christian Dagenais Valéry Ridde Emmanuelle Jean France Charles Fleury Quan Nha Hong Ollivier Prigent A scoping review of theories, models and frameworks used or proposed to evaluate knowledge mobilization strategies Health Research Policy and Systems Knowledge mobilization Knowledge translation Theories, models, and frameworks Evaluation Scoping review |
| title | A scoping review of theories, models and frameworks used or proposed to evaluate knowledge mobilization strategies |
| title_full | A scoping review of theories, models and frameworks used or proposed to evaluate knowledge mobilization strategies |
| title_fullStr | A scoping review of theories, models and frameworks used or proposed to evaluate knowledge mobilization strategies |
| title_full_unstemmed | A scoping review of theories, models and frameworks used or proposed to evaluate knowledge mobilization strategies |
| title_short | A scoping review of theories, models and frameworks used or proposed to evaluate knowledge mobilization strategies |
| title_sort | scoping review of theories models and frameworks used or proposed to evaluate knowledge mobilization strategies |
| topic | Knowledge mobilization Knowledge translation Theories, models, and frameworks Evaluation Scoping review |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-023-01090-7 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT salihaziam ascopingreviewoftheoriesmodelsandframeworksusedorproposedtoevaluateknowledgemobilizationstrategies AT severinelanoue ascopingreviewoftheoriesmodelsandframeworksusedorproposedtoevaluateknowledgemobilizationstrategies AT esthermcsweencadieux ascopingreviewoftheoriesmodelsandframeworksusedorproposedtoevaluateknowledgemobilizationstrategies AT mathieujoelgervais ascopingreviewoftheoriesmodelsandframeworksusedorproposedtoevaluateknowledgemobilizationstrategies AT julielane ascopingreviewoftheoriesmodelsandframeworksusedorproposedtoevaluateknowledgemobilizationstrategies AT dinagaid ascopingreviewoftheoriesmodelsandframeworksusedorproposedtoevaluateknowledgemobilizationstrategies AT laurajustinechouinard ascopingreviewoftheoriesmodelsandframeworksusedorproposedtoevaluateknowledgemobilizationstrategies AT christiandagenais ascopingreviewoftheoriesmodelsandframeworksusedorproposedtoevaluateknowledgemobilizationstrategies AT valeryridde ascopingreviewoftheoriesmodelsandframeworksusedorproposedtoevaluateknowledgemobilizationstrategies AT emmanuellejean ascopingreviewoftheoriesmodelsandframeworksusedorproposedtoevaluateknowledgemobilizationstrategies AT francecharlesfleury ascopingreviewoftheoriesmodelsandframeworksusedorproposedtoevaluateknowledgemobilizationstrategies AT quannhahong ascopingreviewoftheoriesmodelsandframeworksusedorproposedtoevaluateknowledgemobilizationstrategies AT ollivierprigent ascopingreviewoftheoriesmodelsandframeworksusedorproposedtoevaluateknowledgemobilizationstrategies AT salihaziam scopingreviewoftheoriesmodelsandframeworksusedorproposedtoevaluateknowledgemobilizationstrategies AT severinelanoue scopingreviewoftheoriesmodelsandframeworksusedorproposedtoevaluateknowledgemobilizationstrategies AT esthermcsweencadieux scopingreviewoftheoriesmodelsandframeworksusedorproposedtoevaluateknowledgemobilizationstrategies AT mathieujoelgervais scopingreviewoftheoriesmodelsandframeworksusedorproposedtoevaluateknowledgemobilizationstrategies AT julielane scopingreviewoftheoriesmodelsandframeworksusedorproposedtoevaluateknowledgemobilizationstrategies AT dinagaid scopingreviewoftheoriesmodelsandframeworksusedorproposedtoevaluateknowledgemobilizationstrategies AT laurajustinechouinard scopingreviewoftheoriesmodelsandframeworksusedorproposedtoevaluateknowledgemobilizationstrategies AT christiandagenais scopingreviewoftheoriesmodelsandframeworksusedorproposedtoevaluateknowledgemobilizationstrategies AT valeryridde scopingreviewoftheoriesmodelsandframeworksusedorproposedtoevaluateknowledgemobilizationstrategies AT emmanuellejean scopingreviewoftheoriesmodelsandframeworksusedorproposedtoevaluateknowledgemobilizationstrategies AT francecharlesfleury scopingreviewoftheoriesmodelsandframeworksusedorproposedtoevaluateknowledgemobilizationstrategies AT quannhahong scopingreviewoftheoriesmodelsandframeworksusedorproposedtoevaluateknowledgemobilizationstrategies AT ollivierprigent scopingreviewoftheoriesmodelsandframeworksusedorproposedtoevaluateknowledgemobilizationstrategies |