Skip to main content

Table 3 Delphi study with KT experts: results of round 1

From: Improving KT tools and products: development and evaluation of a framework for creating optimized, Knowledge-activated Tools (KaT)

KaT Framework Domain

Domain factor

N

Mean (SD)

Median

IQR†

Percent agreement to include‡

DISCOVER

Important to include the DISCOVER domain in the overall KaT framework

35

6.7 (0.70)

7.0

0

97%

It makes sense for the DISCOVER domain to feed into the central part of the KaT framework

35

6.3 (0.94)

6.0

1

91%

Knowledge users will find the DISCOVER domain useful.

35

6.1 (1.09)

6.0

2

91%

DISCOVER is an appropriate label

35

5.0 (1.40)

5.0

2

71%

The 3 sub-domains of DISCOVER (and their elements) make sense

33

6.2 (0.70)

6.0

1

94%

The 3 sub-domains of DISCOVER (and their elements) are comprehensive

33

5.9 (1.04)

6.0

1

88%

DEVELOP

Important to include in the overall KaT framework

35

6.5 (0.81)

7.0

1

86%

Knowledge users will find it useful.

35

5.7 (1.53)

6.0

2

74%

The 5 sub-domains of DEVELOP (and their elements) make sense

33

6.2 (0.93)

6.0

1

91%

The 5 sub-domains of DEVELOP (and their elements) are comprehensive

33

6.0 (0.88)

6.0

0

91%

DISSEMINATE

Important to include in the overall KaT framework

35

6.3 (0.86)

7.0

1

94%

Knowledge users will find it useful.

35

5.6 (1.50)

6.0

3

71%

The 4 sub-domains (and their elements) make sense

33

6.2 (0.75)

6.0

1

91%

The 4 sub-domains (and their elements) are comprehensive

33

6.2 (0.76)

6.0

1

94%

IMPLEMENT

Important to include in the overall KaT framework

35

6.5 (0.81)

7.0

1

94%

Knowledge users will find it useful

35

6.0 (1.43)

7.0

2

83%

The 5 sub-domains (and their elements) make sense

32

6.0 (1.01)

6.0

1

91%

The 5 sub-domains (and their elements) are comprehensive

32

6.0 (1.02)

6.0

0

91%

3 BROAD DOMAINS

The three domains represented in the KaT framework is comprehensive in terms of capturing what is important to consider in the creation and uptake of KT tools

35

5.54 (1.5)

6.0

2

80%

IMPACT DRIVERS

The label “Impact Drivers” appropriately conveys these four concepts

35

5.4 (1.29)

6.0

1

80%

The order in which the four impact drivers are represented make sense

35

5.2 (1.63)

6.0

2

71%

The placement of the four impact drivers clearly illustrates that they should be considered across each of the three broad domains of the framework (i.e., develop, disseminate, implement)

35

5.4 (1.58)

6.0

2

74%

Integrated KT (iKT)

 It makes sense to include iKT as one of the impact drivers

35

6.1 (1.23)

6.0

1

91%

 The 3 sub-domains of iKT (and their elements) make sense

32

6.4 (0.72)

6.0

1

97%

 The 3 sub-domains of iKT (and their elements) are comprehensive

32

6.3 (0.74)

6.0

1

97%

EVALUATION

 It makes sense to include EVALUATION as one of the impact drivers

35

6.1 (1.33)

7.0

1

91%

 The representation of EVALUATION across the 3 domainsmake sense

32

5.8 (1.30)

6.0

2

88%

 The representation of EVALUATION across the 4 impact driversmake sense

32

5.7 (1.40)

6.0

2

88%

 EVALUATION is included in all of the areas of the KaT framework that should consider evaluation

31

6.0 (0.82)

6.0

2

97%

SUSTAINABILITY

 It makes sense to include SUSTAINABILITY as one of the impact drivers

35

6.2 (0.83)

6.0

1

94%

 The 4 sub-domains (and their elements) of SUSTAINABILITY make sense

32

6.1 (0.70)

6.0

1

97%

 The 4 sub-domains (and their elements) of SUSTAINABILITY are comprehensive

32

6.0 (0.88)

6.0

1

97%

SCALABILITY

 It makes sense to include SCALABILITY as one of the impact drivers

35

6.2 (0.86)

6.0

1

91%

 The 5 sub-domains (and their elements) of SCALABILITY make sense

32

5.7 (1.15)

6.0

1

88%

 The 5 sub-domains (and their elements) of SCALABILITY are comprehensive

32

5.9 (1.02)

6.0

0

91%

CORE

The core is important to include as part of the overall KaT framework

35

6.0 (1.43)

6.0

1

83%

The placement of the CORE clearly illustrates that a KT tool is the ultimate goal and end product resulting from using the KaT framework

35

5.7 (1.62)

6.0

2

69%

PLANNING

PLANNING, which encircles the core, is important to include as part of the overall KaT framework

35

5.2 (1.61)

6.0

3

60%

The placement of PLANNING clearly illustrates that a plan can be generated for each or all of the three broad domains of the KaT framework (i.e., develop, disseminate, implement)

35

4.9 (1.72)

5.0

3

54%

ACTION PLAN

The ACTION PLAN is important to include as part of the overall KaT framework

35

6.6 (0.77)

7.0

1

97%

Researchers will find it useful

35

5.7 (1.33)

6.0

3

74%

Health care providers will find it useful

35

5.8 (1.20)

6.0

3

77%

Policy or decision makers will find it useful

35

5.7 (1.18)

6.0

3

74%

It’s clear that the ACTION PLAN will be an output resulting from the use of the KaT framework

35

6.0 (1.38)

6.0

1

91%

The 7 outputs (and their elements) of the ACTION PLAN make sense

32

5.9 (1.12)

6.0

2

91%

The 7 outputs (and their elements) of the ACTION PLAN are comprehensive

32

5.9 (1.11)

6.0

2

91%

OVERALL KaT framework

The overall framework is clear (i.e., easy to understand or interpret)

35

5.3 (1.33)

6.0

1

77%

The organization makes sense

35

5.6 (1.34)

6.0

1

83%

The KaT framework is a good reflection of its intended purpose (i.e., to guide the rigorous and efficient creation of KT tools)

35

5.7 (1.30)

6.0

2

74%

The KaT framework is comprehensive (i.e., it covers the important areas that need to be considered in the creation of KT tools and products)

35

5.9 (1.10)

6.0

1

89%

Researchers will find it useful

35

5.8 (1.20)

6.0

2

80%

Health care providers will find it useful

35

5.3 (1.40)

6.0

2

66%

Policy or decision makers will find it useful

35

5.3 (1.40)

6.0

2

63%

TABLE of existing KT tools

Knowledge users will find the TABLE of existing KT tools organized by targets useful

35

5.4 (1.60)

6.0

3

63%

Knowledge users will find the TABLE of existing KT tools mapped to purpose categories useful

35

5.4 (1.60)

6.0

3

69%

  1. IQR 0 = high consensus, IQR 1 = good consensus, IQR 2 = poor consensus
  2. Percent agreement to include item = score of ≥ 5 out of 7 by ≥ 80% of panel (consensus) or < 5 out of 7 by < 80% of panel (non-consensus)
  3. Domain items that did not reach consensus to include by < 80% of panel are bolded