Table 1 Research translation decision criteria described by the papers included in the review (N = 46)

Glasgow (2003) [37]

Authors use the RE-AIM framework to illustrate challenges inherent in translation of diabetes care interventions.

Evidence-based findings for diabetes care

Methods/factors that can accelerate the translation of research to practice: (1) enhance and measure the reach of interventions, especially toward poor, underserved, and minority populations; (2) develop programs that can be widely adopted by diverse settings; (3) produce replicable effects and enhance quality of life, in addition to short-term behavioral or biological outcomes; (4) be consistently implemented by different staff members having moderate levels of training; and (5) produce maintenance at both individual and setting levels and at reasonable cost.

#1

#9

#10

#17

Glasgow et al. (2004) [22]

This article highlights reasons why most behavioral and health promotion studies have not been translated into practice, focusing on study design characteristics as a central contributing barrier.

Health promotion studies

Criteria to improve research translation include (1) feasibility and costs of interventions, (2) assessments of what works across various targeted groups, under assorted conditions/diverse settings (i.e., context-specific efficacy research), (3) adequate time for translation and sufficient necessary resources, and (4) absence of competing demands. Also, changes will be required on the part of researchers, funding agencies, and review/editorial boards.

#1

#2

#6

#7

#9

Dzewaltowski et al. (2004) [38]

Authors describe individual- and setting-level factors important for translation that moderate the impact of interventions and often are not reported in the literature.

Health promotion research on physical activity engagement

Individual participant-level indicators that impact research translation include reach and efficacy. Setting-level indicators include adoption and implementation. Maintenance is assessed at both an individual and setting level of impact. In addition, consideration of internal and external validity in the planning, design, and evaluation of health behavior promotion interventions.

#1

Glasgow et al. (2004) [39]

Authors discuss issues in, barriers to, and lessons learned regarding the dissemination of interventions. Specifically, they summarize previous reviews, exemplary studies, and theories on the diffusion/dissemination of cancer screening interventions.

Research on efficacious cancer screening programs

Six lessons learned: address the involvement of key stakeholders, factors influencing diffusion, the need for different types of efficacy and effectiveness studies with greater attention to external validity, replication, use of theoretical and evaluation models, and importance of policy infrastructure.

#1

#5

#6

Klesges et al. (2005) [40]

This article describes the RE-AIM framework and how it can be used to plan and design studies with features that can strengthen the potential translation of interventions.

Behavioral change interventions

Considerations for research translation: (1) studies of external validity in less controlled and optimal contexts are important (and often overlooked since internal validity is easier to achieve); (2) adoption rate (including ineligibility of certain settings/populations, representation); (3) potential for maintenance of intervention by research staff or community; (4) consideration of “how” and “why” and intervention might be adopted into practice.

#1

#5

#8

#14

Green and Glasgow (2006) [41]

This article suggests criteria to evaluate intervention external validity and potential for generalization and recommends procedures to adapt interventions and integrate them with evidence on population and setting characteristics, theory, and experience into locally appropriate programs.

Practice-based evidence

Considerations for research translation: (1) program adaption and evolution/maintenance; (2) attention to issues of practice-based, real-time, ordinary settings and related research (instead of just basing research translation on the strongest controlled evaluations); (3) external validity should be considered to the same degree as internal validity.

#1

#4

#8

#10

Glasgow and Emmons (2007) [42]

This review summarizes factors that have interfered with translation of research to practice and what public health researchers can do to hasten such transfer.

Evidence-based, efficacious interventions

Intervention characteristics that impact research translation: (1) high cost, intensive time demands; (2) high level of staff expertise required; (3) difficult to learn/understand; (4) not packaged or “manualized”; (5) not developed considering user needs, not designed to be self-sustaining; and (6) highly specific to a particular setting, not modularized or customizable. Target setting characteristics that impact research translation: (1) competing demands, program imposed from outside; (2) financial/organizational instability, specific needs of clients/setting; (3) limited resources, time, and organizational support; (4) prevailing practices work against innovation; (5) perverse incentives/regulations; (6) challenges implementing interventions with quality.

#3

#5

#6

#8

#9

#10

#14

#15

#16

Prohaska and Peters (2007) [43]

This paper discusses problems that might be faced when translating basic research findings into public health practice for cognitive impairment and/or dementia in older adults and addresses how some of these problems might be overcome.

Research on physical activity among the elderly

The impact of research translation and dissemination is evaluated in terms of (1) the depth and range of settings in which the research innovation and public health message are adopted, (2) the degree to which the programs and innovations are implemented as intended, and (3) the degree to which the research is maintained and institutionalized in these settings.

#10

#14

#16

Baker et al. (2008) [21]

The purpose of this article was to describe the identification and evaluation of research- and practice-based evidence criteria.

Public health evidence

Research- and practice-based evidence criteria: (1) context (political, social, or economic), (2) changeability of intervention, (3) community readiness, ability to evaluate, (4) resources, (5) time, and cost constraints, (6) intervention is succinctly described, (7) replicability of procedures, (8) sustainability, (9) adaptability, (10) fidelity, (11) feasibility, (12) reach, (13) intervention acceptability across multiple populations, (14) tools and protocols are available for public use, level of support needed (i.e., technical assistance), (15) simplicity, (16) multiple structured activities, (17) practicability without funding, (18) leadership, (19) organizational commitment, (20) community engagement, (21) partnership factors (size, history, communication/trust, compatibility of organizational cultures)

#3

#5

#6

#9

#10

#13

#15

Flaspohler et al. (2008) [44]

This article operationalizes capacity and distinguishes among types and levels of capacity as they relate to dissemination and implementation.

Theory and research findings

Organization-specific capacity factors: (1) fit with goals, values, norms, practices, and organizational and program needs; (2) ability to adapt to suit needs and select appropriate innovations; (3) selection of staff to implement innovation, strong administrative support, formal commitment (i.e., to provide necessary resources); (4) employee skill, incentives, limited obstacles, support for staff in implementation (training/support); (5) assistance for sustainability of innovation; and (6) staff agreement on program values. In addition, strategic placement of supporters in the organization, well-connected local champion, credibility of program within community, potential for program sustainability, and technical capacities/assistance are important.

#3

#5

#6

#10

#14

Guerra and Knox (2008) [45]

The article examines the impact of cultural characteristics on the translation of innovations into practice at the community level, relying on an interactive systems framework.

Evidence-based family-school interventions/programs

For research translation, conditions for utilization of support must be consistent with the cultural framework of the agency and the community. Partnerships should be understood as “expert” advice from a partner who is trustworthy, competent, and knowledgeable about local concerns and cultural norms, as part of an ongoing relationship that would endure over time.

#11

#12

Livet et al. (2008) [46]

This article examines types of organizational characteristics that are related to the successful use of programming processes (i.e., planning, implementation, valuation, and sustainability) that are part of comprehensive programming frameworks.

Comprehensive programming frameworks (e.g., Communities that Care-CtC)

Except for sustainability, process-specific organizational capacities were more highly correlated with programming process use than overall organizational functioning variables. The strongest and most consistent factor related to the use of all planning steps was the presence of a planning process champion. The amount of technical assistance and training and the presence of an implementation process champion were the only variables related to the extent of use of implementation guidelines. Insufficient financial resources were the only factor that strongly correlated with greater implementation of evaluation guidelines.

#5

#6

#9

#14

Wandersman et al. (2008) [47]

This article presents the Interactive Systems Framework for Dissemination and Implementation that uses aspects of research to practice models and of community-centered models.

Evidence-based practices in medicine, public health, and psychotherapy treatment

Overarching criteria that impact evidence translation: (1) funding, (2) macro policy, (3) climate, and (4) existing research and theory. Within that, there is the “system of implementing prevention” (or the prevention delivery system) that is impacted by general capacity and innovation-specific capacity use. Another system within is “supporting the work” (or prevention support system) impacted by general capacity building, and innovation-specific capacity building. The last system within is “distilling the information” (or prevention synthesis and translation system) which is impacted by synthesis and translation.

#1

#4

#5

#6

#7

#10

Scharff and Mathews (2008) [48]

This article describes the importance of community engagement throughout the translation and dissemination process, strategies for increasing it, and the steps that need to occur so that community participation is recognized and utilized.

Scientific discoveries

The use of community-based participatory research requires that researchers be culturally competent, that is, they demonstrate respect for individual and cultural differences and implement trust promoting methods of inquiry. Three components of cultural competency: knowledge, attitude, and skill. Being knowledgeable about communities, understanding world views and cultural context of communities. Researchers recognize and address their own prejudices/stereotypes. Use of a set of skills, including listening and other communication skills that can help create and sustain relationships.

#11

#12

Durlak and DuPre (2008) [14]

This review assesses the impact of implementation on program outcomes and identifies factors affecting the implementation process.

Health promoting interventions

Organizational factors that impact implementation: (1) need for community structure (e.g., a coalition) or an existing community-based agency (e.g., health clinic, community service center) and (2) training and technical assistance that is provided by outside parties. Ecological context factors that impact implementation: (1) innovation characteristics, (2) provider characteristics, (3) community factors, (4) the prevention research system, (5) politics/policy, and (6) funding.

#6

#10

Mendel et al. (2008) [33]

This paper describes the research questions and challenges that have arisen in the efforts to address health issues and the progressive succession of approaches taken to study organizational contexts in healthcare and community settings.

Evidence-based health interventions within community settings

Setting-level factors impacting research translation: (1) macro system environment, (2) legal/policy environment, (3) resource/economic environment, (4) cultural/normative environment, and (5) organizational networks and linkages. Important stakeholders: professional networks, communities of practice, social support networks, populations in need or at risk, care delivery organizations, interest groups, regulatory agencies, insurers, and purchasers. These all play a role in the context of diffusion (of the intervention) and should be evaluated before translation with a capacity/needs assessment. Once evaluated, adoption, implementation, and sustainment will occur to yield intervention outcomes.

#5

#6

#9

#11

Arrington et al. (2008) [49]

The purpose of this article is to report on the process and results of a year-long project designed to build a Missouri action plan for improving public health practice through increased research translation and dissemination.

Public health knowledge

Themes identified to improve research translation: (1) provide education and training; (2) enhance capacity; (3) change incentives and accountability; (4) shift funding toward community needs; (5) support practice-based research; (6) engage and collaborate with the community; (7) share knowledge; (8) engage influential people; and (9) sustain momentum; action plans were drafted to address priorities in each cluster.

#1

#5

#6

Saul et al. (2008) [50]

This article illustrates ideas for bridging science and practice generated during the Division of Violence Prevention’s dissemination/implementation planning process.

Research on youth violence prevention

To bridge science and practice, funders can promote the expectation that capacity-building efforts should be held to an evidence-based standard. Training, technical assistance, and coaching should be based on knowledge on the effectiveness of delivering such support, and those who provide it should be required to evaluate their effect on changes in practice. Resources should be made available for strong syntheses and translation of evidence-based approaches.

#6

Damschroder et al. (2009) [51]

Authors describe the CFIR that offers an overarching typology to promote implementation theory development and verification about what works, where, and why across multiple contexts.

Empirically supported interventions

Intervention characteristics that promote implementation: (1) intervention source (i.e., perception of key stakeholders on whether intervention is internally or externally developed), (2) evidence strength and quality, (3) relative advantage, (4) adaptability, (5) trialability, (6) complexity, (7) design quality and packaging, (8) and cost. Outer setting factors impacting implementation: (1) patient needs/resources, (2) cosmopolitanism, (3) peer pressure, and (4) external policies/incentives. Inner setting factors: (1) structural characteristics, (2) networks and communications, (3) culture, and (4) implementation climate. Individual characteristics: (1) knowledge/beliefs about the intervention, (2) self efficacy, (3) individual stage of change, (4) individual identification with organization, and (5) other attributes (e.g., intellect, motivation, values, capacity, learning style recognized by implementors).

#1

#3

#4

#5

#6

#7

#9

#10

#11

Prochaska et al. (2009) [52]

This article describes the process for developing the curriculum and application of Rogers’s Diffusion of Innovations theory and Glasgow and colleagues’ RE-AIM framework in guiding dissemination and evaluation of its adoption and implementation in psychiatry residency and graduate psychiatric nursing programs.

Evidence-based curriculum for tobacco cessation

Intervention barriers to adoption and implementation: (1) high cost, (2) intensive time demands, (3) high level of staff expertise required, (4) difficult to learn/understand, (5) not packaged or “manualized”, (6) not developed considering user needs, (7) not self-sustaining, (8) highly setting specific, and (9) not modularized/customizable. Adoption setting barriers to adoption and implementation: (1) competing demands, (2) program imposed from outside, (3) unstable finance or organizations, (4) clients and setting have specific needs, (5) limited resources/time, (6) limited organizational support, (7) prevailing practices that work against innovation, (8) incentives/regulations that oppose change, (9) characteristics of the research design, (10) not relevant or representative sample of patients, settings, or clinicians, (11) failure to evaluate cost/maintenance/sustainability and assess implementation.

#3

#6

#8

#9

#10

#14

#16

#17

Green et al. (2009) [53]

Authors review concepts that have guided or misguided public health in their attempts to bridge science and practice through dissemination and implementation.

Public health and medical knowledge

Five broad principles to bridge science to practice gap: (1) Needs of patients and populations should dictate the health research agenda; (2) Research agenda should address contextual and implementation issues including the development of implementation and accountability systems; (3) Research agenda should dictate the research methodologies rather than methodologies dictating the research agenda; (4) Researchers/practitioners/other users should collaborate to define the research agenda, allocate resources, and implement the findings; (5) Level of funding for dissemination and implementation research should be proportionate to the magnitude of the task.

#3

#9

Van Olphen et al. (2009) [54]

This evaluation used community-based participatory research guidelines to evaluate the participatory approach of the Community Outreach and Translation Core of the Bay Area Breast Cancer and the Environment Research Center in translating scientific findings.

Community-based participatory research

Identified approaches for translating scientific findings: (1) alignment of the project with principles of participatory research; (2) project structure as facilitator and barrier; (3) lack of explicit agreements regarding stakeholder roles; (4) nature and stage of research; (5) community involvement, (6) stakeholder skills, priorities, and needs tied to level of participation; (7) communication challenges the participatory process; and (8) lack of trust hinders participation.

#6

#5

#11

Ritzwoller et al. (2009) [55]

This paper introduces the Smoking Less, Living More study that was used as a prototype for their cost assessment methods, presents a five-step cost assessment guide designed for evaluation of the behavioral interventions, and reports results pertaining to the Smoking Less, Living More study and sensitivity analyses.

Behavioral interventions

Intervention costs must be distinguished from research, development, and recruitment costs. The inclusion of sensitivity analyses is recommended to understand the implications of implementation of the intervention into different settings using different intervention resources. Cost analysis can provide researchers and policymakers with valuable information regarding the feasibility of a proposed intervention.

#7

#9

#10

Sousa and Rojjanasrirat (2011) [56]

This paper reviews recommendations of cross-cultural validation of instruments/scales and proposes a guideline for the translation, adaptation, and validation of instruments/scales for cross-cultural health care research.

Instruments or scales for use in cross-cultural health care research

Research instruments must be properly translated to fit the community needs and maintain their same meaning. The instrument must show reliability and validity in cross-cultural research. Afterwards, pilot testing of the new instrument must be completed before translation, in general and in the target population.

#1

#3

#17

Meyers et al. (2012) [57]

The goal was to summarize research support that exists for the different steps in the quality implementation framework and offer suggestions for future research efforts. The practical goal was to outline the practical implications of our findings in terms of improving future implementation efforts in the world of practice.

Evidence-based research

Initial considerations regarding the host setting, assessment strategies: (1) needs and resources assessment, (2) fit assessment, and (3) capacity/readiness assessment. Decisions about adaptation: possibility for adaptation. Capacity-building strategies: (1) buy-in from critical stakeholders, (2) supportive community/organizational climate, (3) general/organizational capacity, (4) staff recruitment/maintenance, and (5) effective pre-innovation staff training. Creating a structure for implementation, structural features: implementation teams and plan. Ongoing structure once implementation begins: (1) support strategies, (2) technical assistance/coaching/supervision, (3) process evaluation, (4) supportive feedback mechanism, and (5) learning from experience.

#5

#6

#10

Cilenti et al. (2012) [58]

This article describes factors that contribute to successful translation of science into evidence-based practices and their implementation in public health practice agencies, based on a review of the literature and evidence from case studies.

Public health science

The CFIR was most applicable to case studies in this article. It organizes the constructs into 5 domains: (1) intervention characteristics (i.e., perceived source, evidence strength and quality), (2) outer setting (i.e., community needs/resources, (3) external policies/incentives, (4) inner setting (i.e., perceived need for change, available resources), and (5) characteristics of individuals (i.e., knowledge/beliefs about the intervention), implementation process (i.e., quality of planning/engaging staff). Commonly cited barriers to implementing evidence-based practices: (1) lack of time, (2) inadequate funding, and (3) absence of cultural and managerial support (including incentives).

#1

#3

#5

#6

#9

#12

Brownson et al. (2013) [20]

This paper describes the practice of designing for dissemination among researchers in the USA with the intent of identifying gaps and areas for improvement.

Public, environmental, and occupational health research

Factors to consider when designing for dissemination: (1) formal training/access to someone with formal training in communication, (2) dedicated person/team for dissemination in unit/organization, (3) unit/department has formal communication/dissemination strategy, (4) use of framework/theory to plan dissemination activities, and (5) frequent summaries for non-research audiences, stakeholders involved.

#6

Glasgow (2013) [59]

This paper provides examples of pragmatic methods, measures, and models and how they have been applied.

Scientific research

PRECIS model factors influencing research translation: (1) flexibility of the comparison intervention, (2) practitioner expertise, (3) flexibility of the experimental intervention, (4) eligibility criteria, (5) primary analysis, (6) practitioner adherence, (7) participant compliance, (8) outcomes, and (9) follow-up intensity. Recommended characteristics of measures/metrics: (1) reliability, (2) validity, (3) sensitivity to change, (4) feasibility, (5) importance to practitioners, (6) public health relevance, (7) actionable, user-friendly, (8) broad applicability, (9) cost, (10) ability to enhance patient engagement, and (11) causes no harm. Evidence Integration Triangle model factors influencing research translation: (1) internal and external validity and key components of the intervention/program/policy, (2) participatory implementation process (i.e., stakeholder engagement), and (3) practical progress measures (actionable, longitudinal measures). Multi-level context is important: intrapersonal, biological, interpersonal, organizational, policy, community, economic, social, and environmental factors.

#1

#2

#5

#10

Phillips et al. (2014) [60]

The article presents a research agenda to accelerate the dissemination/implementation of empirically supported physical activity interventions into care.

Empirically supported physical activity interventions into care for cancer survivors

Use of RE-AIM framework, which highlights internal and external validity. Intervention-specific barriers: (1) intense, high cost, on-site interventions in high-resource settings; (2) high level of expertise required; (3) inflexible programs; (4) do not meet the needs of survivors; (5) not “packaged” or manualized; and (6) need for participants to travel to participate. Setting-specific barriers: (1) lack of time/resources; (2) competing demands; (3) physical space restrictions; (4) limited staff with expertise; (5) limited organizational support; and (6) specific needs/situations limit ability to implement. Research design-specific barriers: (1) exclude those with other chronic conditions; (2) nonrepresentative, homogenous samples; (3) failure to evaluate cost/implementation; (4) do not involve stakeholders.

#1

#3

#6

#7

#8

#16

Cohen et al. (2015) [61]

This article presents the case study of “1-2-3 Pap,” a health communication intervention to improve human papillomavirus vaccination uptake and Pap testing outcomes in Eastern Kentucky, and explores strategies used to disseminate this intervention to other populations.

Communication intervention to improve HPV vaccine uptake

Considerations include (1) developing strategies for reaching other potential audiences, (2) identifying intervention message adaptations that might be needed, and (3) determining the most appropriate means or channels by which to reach these potential future audiences.

#10

Neta et al. (2015) [62]

This article presents and discusses implications of their framework to highlight areas that are underreported but would substantially enhance the value of research for end-users with the end goal of improving population health, and to compare concepts in existing reporting guidelines to our framework.

Public health research

Applied research is almost always multi-level and crosses social-ecological levels. This includes historical context, policy climate, and incentives, as well as organizational settings and persons delivering and receiving interventions, and is often lacking or missing important elements. The issue of “fit” or alignment (or lack of fit) between an intervention program or policy and its context is one of the key elements of the framework.

#3

#6

Ross et al. (2016) [25]

This review provides an update and re-analysis of a systematic review of the e-health implementation literature culminating in a set of accessible and usable recommendations for anyone involved or interested in the implementation of e-health.

E-health interventions in healthcare settings

Factors influencing implementation for e-health: (1) complexity, (2) adaptability, (3) compatibility with existing systems and work practices, (4) cost, (5) key stakeholders and implementation champions included as early in the implementation process, (6) sufficient financial and legislative support, (7) standards for technology (which address inter-operability, security, and privacy may improve acceptability/implementation), (8) organizations are in a state of readiness, (9) training and education, (10) ongoing monitoring, evaluation and adaptation of systems, (11) benefits realized, and (12) ongoing identification of barriers to effective use, along with strategies to overcome these barriers.

#4

#5

#6

#7

#8

#9

#15

Brownson et al. (2018) [63]

This article describes (1) lessons related to dissemination from related disciplines (e.g., communication, agriculture, social marketing, political science), (2) current practices among researchers, (3) key audience characteristics, (4) available tools for dissemination, and (5) measures of impact.

Public health knowledge

While public health practitioners value evidence-based approaches and dissemination, the heterogeneity of the workforce presents challenges. Studies among state public health practitioners have shown that only 46% use journals in their day-to-day work and use is lower (33%) at the local level. Lack of access is a major barrier to journal use. Other barriers to the use of scientific information include (1) time, (2) resource reliability, (3) trustworthiness/credibility of data, and (4) information overload.

#1

Hirschhorn et al. (2018) [64]

This paper describes reasons for the research to practice gap and offer suggestions to better bridge the chasm between researchers and implementers.

Research on quality improvement

Authors recommend a number of initial steps to better bridge the gap between researchers and implementers: (1) aligning project goals and joint planning; (2) choosing the right research design; (3) building implementer research capacity; (4) aligning incentives to drive collaboration; (5) simplifying documentation for dissemination of learning.

#5

#6

McKay et al. (2018) [65]

Given the infancy of de-implementation, this paper provides a conceptual narrative, definition, and criteria for determining if an intervention should be de-implemented

Human services research

Authors identify three criteria for identifying interventions appropriate for de-implementation: (a) interventions that are not effective or harmful, (b) interventions that are not the most effective or efficient to provide, and (c) interventions that are no longer necessary.

#1

#3

Kwon et al. (2018) [66]

This article seeks to provide understanding and examples of how to apply core principles of community-based participatory research in developing patient-centered outcomes research that can impact clinical and public health practice.

Community-based participatory research

Common themes of community-based participatory research and patient-centered outcomes research strategies are related to (1) fostering joint ownership in the identification of health priorities, development/evaluation of research strategies/design, and dissemination of findings; (2) recognition/appreciation for stakeholder priorities, research, and solutions; (3) building capacity of both stakeholders and researchers to engage in research collaboratively; and (4) recognizing that conducting the research is not the endpoint but continues with commitment to dissemination, spread, adoption, and sustainability.

#5

#8

Pettibone et al. (2018) [67]

The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) introduces a new translational research framework that builds upon previous biomedical models to create a more comprehensive and integrated environmental health paradigm.

Environmental health research

Adequate research is needed to test the effectiveness of interventions in real-world settings and adjusts the intervention accordingly to promote implementation. Authors also note the importance of (1) understanding health impact of an intervention in real-world settings and (2) community partner involvement and their input, knowledge, and skills for proper translation.

#1

#5

#8

Wathen and MacMillan (2018) [68]

This paper reviews key concepts in the knowledge translation area, with a particular focus on integrated knowledge translation, which focuses on researcher-knowledge user partnership in mental health and prevention of violence against women and children using examples from completed and ongoing work.

Research evidence

Importance of the 3Ts: (1) talk, (2) trust, and (3) time, in knowledge activities. That is, that developing and maintaining trusting partner relationships involves significant interaction, which takes time, and requires sustained effort and commitment by all involved. Uptake/use of new knowledge depends on how it resonated with stakeholders’ beliefs, values, experiences, and decision-making context. Active partner involvement throughout the research process improves the ability of the partnership to achieve its goals. Expanding the range of the potential knowledge users to health policy actors, health advocates, or the public.

#5

#11

Spiel et al. (2018) [69]

The authors propose an approach for the goal-oriented integration of intervention and implementation research.

Research knowledge

Systematic integration of intervention and implementation research and recommend a six-step procedure. Requires researchers to design/develop intervention programs using a field-oriented and participative approach. Policymaker perspectives must be included, and an analysis of which factors support evidence-based policy. Step 1: mission-driven problem recognition; step 2: ensuring availability of robust knowledge; step 3: identification of reasonable action starting points; step 4: establishment of a cooperation process with policymakers; step 5: coordinated development of intervention/implementation; step 6: transfer of program implementation.

#1

#5

Tait and Williamson (2019) [70]

The aim of this review is to determine the extent of the literature on training programs designed to improve researcher competency in knowledge translation and describe existing training methods that may be used by those hoping to build capacity for partnership research.

Knowledge translation training initiatives

Promising training themes that increase research translation include (1) increasing researchers’ knowledge and understanding of health policymaking processes, (2) improving understanding of knowledge translation research methods and knowledge translation theory, and (3) improving communication and relationship-building skills, and skills around the design and evaluation of knowledge translation plans.

#6

Close et al. (2019) [71]

The authors present an operational framework (the “Paper-2-Podium Matrix”) that provides a checklist of criteria for which to prompt the critical evaluation of performance nutrition-related research papers.

Nutrition research

Authors provided a time-efficient framework to aid practitioners in scientific appraisal of research to understand translation potential, by considering the (1) research context, (2) participant characteristics, (3) research design, (4) dietary and exercise controls, (5) validity and reliability of exercise performance tests, (6) data analytics, (7) feasibility of application, (8) risk/reward, and (9) timing of the intervention.

#1

#6

Mazzucca et al. (2019) [72]

The purpose of this study was to identify organizational supports for evidence-based decision-making within local health departments and determine psychometric properties of a measure of organizational supports.

Public health practice to prevent and control chronic disease

Factors influencing translation of evidence for decision-making: (1) awareness of culture supportive of evidence-based decision-making; (2) capacity and expectations for evidence-based decision-making; (3) resource availability; (4) evaluation capacity; (5) evidence-based decision-making climate cultivation; (6) partnerships to support evidence-based decision-making.

#5

#6

#11

Young et al. (2020) [73]

The purpose of this paper is to identify the characteristics that influence community-university partnerships and examine alignment with the Knowledge to Action Framework.

Community-university partnerships

Factors that influence community-university partnerships and translation: (1) adaptation (e.g., feasibility, participatory process, (2) transparency of motivating factors, (3) community engagement, (4) effectiveness (e.g., positive impacts shown in similar populations, (5) comparisons to existing programs), (6) evaluation (e.g., formative research, social assessments), (7) resources (e.g., human resources, back up plans for staff/funding changes, budgeting for engaging experts, existing human/financial resources), (8) stakeholders (e.g., considering end-users before translating, awareness of prior commitments, incorporation of local authorities/champions, leverage existing networks, buy-in from community advisory board), (9) respect for culture of setting (e.g., project is designed and suitable for community setting), and (10) trust/mutual respect (e.g., consideration of public image, active engagement for major decisions).

#1

#4

#5

#6

#9

#10

#11

Koh et al. (2020) [74]

This article seeks to frame and orient researchers from the behavioral sciences to the rapidly growing interdisciplinary field of dissemination and implementation science.

Research that is suitable for translation

Interventions should be empirically supported and effective in influencing health outcomes in the population of interest. They also be a good choice for the organization/setting of interest. Contextual factors to consider: (1) identifying/engaging stakeholders, (2) assessing acceptability, and (3) understanding organizational capacity, climate, and readiness to carry out the intervention.

#1

#3

#5

Barwick et al. (2020) [75]

This report summarizes advancements in knowledge translation practice generally, knowledge translation’s relationship with implementation science, and its practice in the specific area of disability research.

Disability research

For research translation, engaging stakeholders (in organizational components, values, and other practices), acknowledging external drivers (e.g., funding sources, academic promotion), and using theories/models/frameworks are important.

#5

#9

Morgan et al. (2020) [76]

Using the case study of a long-standing community-based participatory research project (“Investigaytors”), this article describes the development and implementation of a knowledge translation intervention aimed at facilitating access to HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis for gay, bisexual, and other sexual minority men in British Columbia, Canada, through a publicly funded program.

Community-based participatory research for a program that facilitates access to HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis

Important factors for knowledge translation: (1) inclusion of multiple perspectives from community, academic, and healthcare partners, and (2) perceived strength and credibility of the knowledge translation intervention opportunities for improving the community-based participatory research process, (3) understanding reciprocity that can include benefits such as training and professional development, and (4) introducing a novel approach to knowledge translation that is driven by community and integrates multiple perspectives.

#5