CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 227Health Policy Implementation ScienceHealth Sciences Research and EducationClinical practice guidelines implementation

Scoping review identifies significant number of knowledge translation theories, models, and frameworks with limited use

Open access
Strifler, Lisa, Cardoso, Roberta, McGowan, Jessie, Cogo, Elise, Nincic, Vera, Khan, Paul A., Scott, Alistair, Ghassemi, Marco +5 more·2018·Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.04.008
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Objectives To conduct a scoping review of knowledge translation (KT) theories, models, and frameworks that have been used to guide dissemination or implementation of evidence-based interventions targeted to prevention and/or management of cancer or other chronic diseases.Study design and setting We used a comprehensive multistage search process from 2000 to 2016, which included traditional bibliographic database searching, searching using names of theories, models and frameworks, and cited reference searching. Two reviewers independently screened the literature and abstracted the data.Results We found 596 studies reporting on the use of 159 KT theories, models, or frameworks. A majority (87%) of the identified theories, models, or frameworks were used in five or fewer studies, with 60% used once. The theories, models, and frameworks were most commonly used to inform planning/design, implementation and evaluation activities, and least commonly used to inform dissemination and sustainability/scalability activities. Twenty-six were used across the full implementation spectrum (from planning/design to sustainability/scalability) either within or across studies. All were used for at least individual-level behavior change, whereas 48% were used for organization-level, 33% for community-level, and 17% for system-level change.Conclusion We found a significant number of KT theories, models, and frameworks with a limited evidence base describing their use.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This scoping review identified 596 studies reporting on the use of 159 knowledge translation (KT) theories, models, or frameworks to guide dissemination or implementation of evidence-based interventions for cancer or other chronic diseases. Most identified KT theories, models, and frameworks had limited use, with 87% used in five or fewer studies and 60% used once.

Key findings

  • The review included 596 studies plus 47 companion reports, reporting on 159 KT theories, models, or frameworks used to guide 627 KT interventions to disseminate or implement 927 clinical interventions.
  • 139 (87%) of the theories, models, or frameworks were used in five or fewer studies, and 95 (60%) were used once; the three most frequently used were Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory (168 studies), Prochaska and DiClemente’s Transtheoretical Model of Behavior Change (141 studies), and Rosenstock’s Health Belief Model (67 studies).
  • The theories, models, or frameworks were most commonly used to inform planning/design (81%), implementation (67%), and evaluation (55%) activities, and least commonly used to inform dissemination (32%) and sustainability/scalability (23%) activities; 26 were used across the full implementation spectrum.
  • All 159 were used for at least individual-level behavior change, while 48% were used for organization-level, 33% for community-level, and 17% for system-level change; 11% addressed all four levels of behavior change.

Methods

  • Scoping review following Arksey and O’Malley and the Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers’ Manual, reported using PRISMA; an integrated KT approach engaged knowledge users at all phases.
  • Comprehensive multistage search from 2000–2016 included bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO), named theory/model/framework searching, cited reference searching, grey literature, and reference-list screening; the BeHEMoTh framework informed the search, and 305 names of KT theories, models, or frameworks were compiled.
  • Two reviewers independently screened titles/abstracts and full texts, with calibration exercises and discrepancies resolved by consensus or a third reviewer; data were abstracted on study, theory/model/framework, and KT intervention characteristics, and synthesis included subgroup analyses by context, stage of care, and level of behavior change.

Limitations

  • The paper states potential misclassification of theories, models, and frameworks because study authors used terms inconsistently; it also states English-language restriction, exclusion of book chapters, focus on cancer and other chronic diseases, no assessment of the limitations or validity evidence of the theories/models/frameworks, no quality appraisal of included studies, and no contact with authors for missing information.
  • The paper states that using the Knowledge-to-Action stages in a linear approach may not capture the iterative nature of KT work, and that the operational definition of theory/model/framework could have affected the number identified and included.
  • Evident from the text: the search ended in 2016, so theories, models, or frameworks published after that period would not be captured; the paper also cautions against using frequency of use as an indicator of quality.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.04.008

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 31 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    The included studies reported using knowledge translation theories, models or frameworks to guide 627 knowledge translation interventions to disseminate or implement 927 clinical interventions.

    “The included studies reported using KT theories, models or frameworks to guide 627 KT interventions to disseminate or implement 927 clinical interventions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The theories, models or frameworks reported in the included studies were accurately identified from the published reports.
  • Findingown data

    The three most frequently used knowledge translation theories, models or frameworks were Bandura's Social Cognitive Theory (168 studies), Prochaska and DiClemente's Transtheoretical Model of Behavior Change (141 studies), and Rosenstock's Health Belief Model (67 studies).

    “Overall, the three most frequently used theories, models or frameworks were Bandura's Social Cognitive Theory (168 studies), Prochaska and DiClemente's Transtheoretical Model of Behavior Change (141 studies) and Rosenstock's Health Belief Model (67 studies).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The theories, models or frameworks reported in the included studies were accurately identified from the published reports.
  • Findingown data

    All 159 identified knowledge translation theories, models or frameworks were used for at least individual-level behavior change.

    “All 159 theories, models and frameworks were used for at least individual-level change”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The theories, models or frameworks reported in the included studies were accurately identified from the published reports.
  • Findingown data

    The 159 identified knowledge translation theories, models or frameworks were most frequently used to inform planning/design (81%), implementation (67%), and evaluation (55%) activities.

    “Most frequently, the 159 identified theories, models and frameworks were used to inform planning/design (81%), implementation (67%) and evaluation (55%) activities.”
    • Also stated in: § M A N U S C R I P T A C C E P T E D · plain
      “The 159 identified theories, models and frameworks were most commonly used to inform planning/design, implementation, and evaluation activities, and least commonly used to inform dissemination and sustainability and/or scalability activities.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The theories, models or frameworks reported in the included studies were accurately identified from the published reports.
  • Findingown data

    The majority (91%) of the identified knowledge translation theories, models or frameworks were reported to be used prospectively.

    “The majority (91%) of theories, models and frameworks were reported to be used prospectively.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The theories, models or frameworks reported in the included studies were accurately identified from the published reports.
  • May combine two claims. 27
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 33

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Of the five full-spectrum knowledge translation theories, models or frameworks used in chronic disease care only, one (Institute for Healthcare Improvement's Collaborative Model for Achieving Breakthrough Improvement) covered more than one stage of care, and none covered the full chronic disease control continuum.

    “of these, one theory, model or framework (Institute for Healthcare Improvement's Collaborative Model for Achieving Breakthrough Improvement) covered more than one stage of care, and none covered the full chronic disease control continuum.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The theories, models or frameworks reported in the included studies were accurately identified from the published reports.

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    The scoping review identified 596 studies and 47 companion reports reporting on the use of knowledge translation theories, models or frameworks.

    “Overall, we included 596 studies and 47 companion reports in our scoping review (Figure 1).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The context included cancer in 350 studies (59%) or other chronic diseases in 295 studies (49%); 49 studies (8%) examined patients with cancer and other types of chronic diseases.

    “The context included cancer in 350 studies (59 %) or other chronic diseases in 295 studies (49%); 49 studies (8%) examined patients with cancer and other types of chronic diseases.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Of the 21 full-spectrum knowledge translation theories, models or frameworks used in cancer control, 18 covered more than one stage of care, and two covered the full cancer control continuum (Action Research and Rogers's Diffusion of Innovations Theory).

    “of these, 18 theories, models or frameworks covered more than one stage of care, of which two covered the full cancer control continuum (Action Research, and Rogers's Diffusion of Innovations Theory).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The theories, models or frameworks reported in the included studies were accurately identified from the published reports.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    The five most common cancer types (including prevention and risk factors) were breast (21%), general/all (cancer) types (13%), colorectal (8%), cervical (7%), and lung (6%).

    “The five most common cancer types (including prevention and risk factors) were breast (21%), general/all (cancer) types (13%), colorectal (8%), cervical (7%), and lung (6%).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Fifteen of the 26 full-spectrum knowledge translation theories, models or frameworks were also used for dissemination, thus covering the full knowledge translation continuum.

    “Fifteen of the 26 full-spectrum theories, models and frameworks were also used for dissemination, thus covering the full KT continuum.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The theories, models or frameworks reported in the included studies were accurately identified from the published reports.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Of the 26 full-spectrum knowledge translation theories, models or frameworks, 18 were used prospectively, two retrospectively, and six both prospectively and retrospectively in different studies.

    “Of the 26 full-spectrum theories, models and frameworks, 18 were used prospectively, two were used retrospectively, and six were used both prospectively and retrospectively in different studies.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The theories, models or frameworks reported in the included studies were accurately identified from the published reports.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Of the 26 full-spectrum knowledge translation theories, models or frameworks, 24 were used for organization-level change, 19 for community-level change, and 11 for system-level change.

    “Of the 26 full-spectrum theories, models and frameworks (used across the planning/design, implementation, evaluation, and sustainability/scalability stages), 24 were used for organization-level change, 19 for communitylevel change, and 11 for system-level change.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The theories, models or frameworks reported in the included studies were accurately identified from the published reports.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The included studies were published from 2000 to 2016, with 69% published in the last 10 years (2007 to 2016), 37% in the last 5 years (2012 to 2016), and 20% in the last 3 years (2014 to 2016).

    “The studies were published from 2000 to 2016, with 69% of studies published in the last 10 years (2007 to 2016), 37% published in the last 5 years (2012 to 2016), and 20% published in the last 3 years (2014 to 2016).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    48% of the 159 identified knowledge translation theories, models or frameworks were used for organization-level change, 33% for community-level change, and 17% for system-level change.

    “while 48% were used for organization-level, 33% for community-level, and 17% for system-level change.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The theories, models or frameworks reported in the included studies were accurately identified from the published reports.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    The 596 included studies were most commonly conducted in North America (74%).

    “The 596 included studies were most commonly conducted in North America (74%; Table 1).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Of the 159 identified knowledge translation theories, models or frameworks, 139 (87%) were used in five or fewer studies, and 95 (60%) were used once.

    “In contrast, 139 (87%) of the theories, models and frameworks were used in five or fewer studies, with 95 (60%) used once.”
    • Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
      “A majority (87%) of the identified theories, models or frameworks were used in five or fewer studies, with 60% used once.”
    • Also stated in: § M A N U S C R I P T A C C E P T E D · plain
      “In contrast, 139 (87%) theories, models and frameworks were used in less than 1% of the included studies (i.e., five or fewer studies), with 95 (60%) used once.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The theories, models or frameworks reported in the included studies were accurately identified from the published reports.
    • Rests on an assumption: The search strategy achieved literature saturation for knowledge translation theories, models and frameworks.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    The five most common chronic diseases (including prevention and risk factors) were cardiovascular (11%), diabetes (9%), general/all (chronic disease) types (9%), obesity/overweight (8%), and other/unspecified (8%).

    “The five most common chronic diseases (including prevention and risk factors) were cardiovascular (11%), diabetes (9%), general/all (chronic disease) types (9%), obesity/overweight (8%), and other/unspecified (8%; Table 1).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Of the 596 included articles, 122 were from the grey literature search and all articles were published.

    “Of the 596 includes, 122 articles were from our grey literature search and all articles were published.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The majority of the interventions targeted patients/general public (85%), while 31% targeted healthcare professionals, and 23% targeted organizations.

    “The majority of the interventions targeted patients/general public (85%), while 31% targeted healthcare professionals, and 23% targeted organizations.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The most common intervention settings were community only (35%), outpatient clinic only (23%), and multiple settings (21%).

    “The most common intervention settings were community only (35%), outpatient clinic only (23%), and multiple settings (i.e., at least two of: community, outpatient clinic, hospital, home, government, and long-term care; 21%).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The funding source was public in 74%, private or a mix of public and private in 7%, no funding in 3%, and not reported in 17% of studies.

    “The funding source was public in 74%, private or a mix of public and private in 7%, no funding in 3%, and not reported in 17% of studies.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The search identified 1664 citations from the first search, 1989 from the named search, 235 from the cited reference search, 977 from the grey literature search of 24 websites, and 319 from checking the reference lists of 31 systematic reviews.

    “We identified 1664 citations from our first search; 1989 citations from our named search; 235 citations from our cited reference search; 977 citations from our grey literature search of 24 websites; and 319 citations from checking the reference lists of 31 systematic reviews.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    After removing duplicates, 4598 citations were screened at the title and abstract level and 1899 articles at the full-text level.

    “After M A N U S C R I P T A C C E P T E D ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 13 removing duplicates, we screened 4598 citations at the title and abstract level and 1899 articles at the full-text level.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    A majority of the KT theories, models and frameworks were used in less than 1% (five or fewer) of the included studies, with many used once.

    “A majority of the theories, models and frameworks were used in less than 1% (i.e., five or fewer) of the included studies, with many used once.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The review identified almost 600 studies, making it the largest review of KT theories, models and frameworks to our knowledge.

    “Despite this, we identified almost 600 studies, making it the largest review of KT theories, models and frameworks to our knowledge.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: No larger review of KT theories, models and frameworks exists.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation

    Outcomes were abstracted and coded using the Cochrane taxonomy of relevant outcomes.

    “Outcomes were abstracted and then coded using the Cochrane taxonomy of relevant outcomes [30].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [30] Cochrane Consumers and Communication

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The review did not assess whether study authors correctly selected and applied the theory, model or framework.

    “Whether or not the study authors correctly selected and applied the theory, model or framework was beyond the scope of this review and highlights something that could be explored in a future project.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Studies have shown that researchers fail to use knowledge translation theories, models and frameworks or may not use them appropriately.

    “Yet studies have shown that researchers fail to use them or may not use them appropriately [3,4].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [3] Davidoff, 2015, Demystifying theory and its use in improvement, BMJ Qual Saf source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [4] Davies, 2010, A systematic review of the use of theory in the design of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies and interpretation of the results of rigorous evaluations, Implement Sci source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Prior to screening, all reviewers completed two separate calibration exercises at each level to ensure reliability.

    “Prior to screening, all reviewers completed two separate calibration exercises at each level to ensure reliability.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Nilsen's taxonomy describes knowledge translation models as useful for guiding the steps or process of implementation.

    “Nilsen's taxonomy describes KT models as useful for guiding the steps or process of implementation.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [5] Nilsen, 2015, Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks, Implement Sci source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation

    The protocol was developed using the scoping review methods by Arksey and O'Malley (2005) and outlined in the Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers' Manual.

    “Our protocol was developed using the scoping review methods by Arksey and O'Malley (2005) [18] and outlined in the Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers' Manual [19].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [18] Arksey, 2005, Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework, Int J Soc Res Methodol source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [19] Peters

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Theories, models and frameworks serve different purposes.

    “Consistent terminology is important because theories, models and frameworks serve different purposes (e.g., Nilsen's taxonomy) [5].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [5] Nilsen, 2015, Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks, Implement Sci source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Prior to data abstraction, all reviewers completed two calibration exercises on a total of 10 articles to ensure team agreement through consensus.

    “Prior to data abstraction, all reviewers completed two calibration exercises on a total of 10 articles to ensure team agreement through consensus.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Discrepancies between reviewers were resolved by consensus, or by a third reviewer.

    “Discrepancies between reviewers were resolved by consensus, or by a third reviewer (LS, SES).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The scope of the review was quite broad and the findings are applicable to a wide range of health areas including public health.

    “Therefore, the scope of our review was quite broad and the findings are applicable to a wide range of health areas including public health.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Knowledge translation frameworks are described as useful for understanding or explaining influences on implementation outcomes or for evaluating implementation efforts.

    “Finally, KT frameworks are described as useful for understanding or explaining influences on implementation outcomes or for evaluating implementation efforts [5].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [5] Nilsen, 2015, Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks, Implement Sci source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductcitation

    The search strategy used the BeHEMoTh framework to inform the search protocol and build a list of names of knowledge translation theories, models and frameworks.

    “To develop a more systematic approach to searching this subject area, we employed a new, iterative approach called the BeHEMoTh (Behavior of interest; Health context; Exclusions; Models or Theories) framework [24] to inform our search protocol and to build a list of names of KT theories, models and frameworks.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [24] Booth, 2015, Systematic searching for theory to inform systematic reviews: is it feasible? Is it desirable?, Health Info Libr J source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation

    Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts and full-text articles.

    “Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts (level 1) and full-text articles (level 2) using online systematic review software Synthesi.sr[27].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [27] Knowledge Translation Program

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    A similar tool exists for KT researchers but is not based on a comprehensive systematic or scoping review approach.

    “While a similar tool does exist for KT researchers [34], the tool is not based on a comprehensive systematic or scoping review approach.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [34] The Center for Research in Implementation Science and Prevention

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    The review did not assess the limitations of the different KT theories, models and frameworks, such as appropriateness for a certain context or lacking validity evidence.

    “Fourth, we did not assess the limitations to the different theories, models and frameworks, such as whether or not it is appropriate for a certain context or is lacking validity evidence [3].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [3] Davidoff, 2015, Demystifying theory and its use in improvement, BMJ Qual Saf source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    The PICO and eligibility criteria were specified a priori with input from knowledge users at the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer.

    “The P (patient, problem or population) I (intervention) C (comparison, control or comparator) O (outcome) and eligibility criteria were specified a priori with input from our knowledge users (LZ, JK) at the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer (a federally-funded organization that is the steward of the Canadian Strategy for Cancer Control).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    A recent citation network analysis of 63 knowledge translation theories, models and frameworks found that while some were highly cited, most were rarely cited in the literature from 1985 to 2012.

    “A recent citation network analysis of 63 KT theories, models and frameworks found that while some were highly cited, most were rarely cited M A N U S C R I P T A C C E P T E D ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 6 in the literature from 1985 to 2012 [17].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [17] Skolarus, 2017, Assessing citation networks for dissemination and implementation research frameworks, Implement Sci source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    To ensure literature saturation, the authors searched reference lists of relevant systematic reviews identified during the first three stages of screening.

    “Finally, to ensure literature saturation, we searched for additional articles by screening the reference lists of relevant systematic reviews identified during the first three stages of screening.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The summary tables can be searched for theories, models or frameworks depending on the details of the dissemination or implementation project.

    “Given the large number of KT theories, models and frameworks available, our summary tables can be searched for theories, models or frameworks depending on the details of the dissemination or implementation project.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Assessment of the quality of the included KT theories, models and frameworks was out of scope and would require separate search strategies to identify evidence of their validity.

    “Assessment of the quality of various theories, models and frameworks was out of scope and would require separate search strategies of each of the included theories, models and frameworks to identify evidence of their validity.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    To optimize feasibility, the authors did not contact study authors for clarity on the theories, models or frameworks used, or to obtain information missing from the included study.

    “To optimize feasibility, we did not contact study authors for clarity on the theories, models or frameworks used, or to obtain information missing from the included study.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The review followed the PRISMA statement for reporting results.

    “We chose to follow the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement [23] for reporting our results, since a reporting tool for scoping reviews does not yet exist.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [23] Moher, 2009, Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement, Ann Intern Med source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Nilsen's 2015 taxonomy describes knowledge translation theories as useful for understanding or explaining aspects of implementation (i.e., the mechanism of change).

    “For example, Nilsen's 2015 taxonomy [5] describes KT theories as useful for understanding or explaining aspects of implementation (i.e., the mechanism of change).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [5] Nilsen, 2015, Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks, Implement Sci source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    The MEDLINE search strategy was peer reviewed independently by an information specialist using the PRESS criteria.

    “The MEDLINE version of the search strategy was peer reviewed independently by an information specialist (EC) using the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) criteria [25] and modified, as needed.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [25] McGowan, 2016, PRESS peer review of electronic search strategies: 2015 guideline statement, J Clin Epidemiol source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Subgroup analyses were performed to explore context (cancer, chronic disease, both), stage of care, and level of behavior change.

    “Based on input from our knowledge users at the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer, subgroup analyses were performed to explore the context (cancer, chronic disease, both), stage of care (prevention, screening, diagnosis, treatment, prognosis, survivorship, palliative care), and level of behavior change (individual, organization, community, system).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Out of 146 identified studies, Field and colleagues found that 101 studies either cited the Knowledge-to-Action model without explanation or used it to guide the project in a 'general, non-specified way', while only 10 studies used the model to inform 'the design, delivery, and evaluation of implementation activities'.

    “Out of 146 identified studies, the authors found that 101 studies either cited the model without explanation or used it to guide the project in a 'general, non-specified way', while only 10 studies used the model to inform 'the design, delivery, and evaluation of implementation activities' [32].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [32] Field, 2014, Using the Knowledge to Action Framework in practice: a citation analysis and systematic review, Implement Sci source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The use of an operational definition of a theory, a model and a framework could have affected the number identified and included in the review.

    “The use of an operational definition of a theory, a model and a framework could have affected the number identified and included in our review.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    Inter-rater agreement was calculated using percent agreement (>75%) across all reviewers.

    “Inter-rater agreement was calculated using percent agreement (>75%) across all reviewers.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Prochaska and DiClemente's Transtheoretical Model of Behavior Change is widely used but lacks supporting evidence of effectiveness from systematic reviews.

    “For instance, Prochaska and DiClemente's Transtheoretical Model of Behavior Change is an example of a widely-used theory, model or framework that lacks supporting evidence of effectiveness from systematic reviews [37].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [37] West, 2005, Time for a change: putting the transtheoretical (stages of change) model to rest, Addiction source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    Acceptable agreement was achieved after two random samples of 50 articles at level 1, and two sets of 20 articles at level 2.

    “We achieved acceptable agreement after two random samples of 50 articles at level 1, and two sets of 20 articles at level 2.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
51 of 51

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The theories, models or frameworks reported in the included studies were accurately identified from the published reports.

    “To optimize feasibility, we did not contact study authors for clarity on the theories, models or frameworks used, or to obtain information missing from the included study.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The search strategy achieved literature saturation for knowledge translation theories, models and frameworks.

    “Finally, to ensure literature saturation, we searched for additional articles by screening the reference lists of relevant systematic reviews identified during the first three stages of screening.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The included studies' reports of using a knowledge translation theory, model or framework to guide dissemination or implementation are sufficient to characterize its use.

    “Articles were excluded if they mentioned a KT theory, model or framework (e.g., in the introduction or discussion sections) without reporting on using it to guide dissemination or implementation of a KT intervention.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The stages of the Knowledge-to-Action cycle can be used in a linear approach to frame the review, even though the cycle is intended to be used iteratively.

    “While we used the stages of the Knowledge-to-Action cycle in a linear approach to frame this review, this is not how the cycle was intended to be used.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The 159 identified knowledge translation theories, models or frameworks are distinct entities and not overlapping or synonymous.

    “We identified 159 different KT theories, models and frameworks.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    End users have difficulty identifying an appropriate KT theory, model or framework to inform their work.

    “A decision support tool to help end users identify an appropriate KT theory, model or framework to inform their work would therefore be highly beneficial.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    No larger review of KT theories, models and frameworks exists.

    “making it the largest review of KT theories, models and frameworks to our knowledge.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    No prior comprehensive review of KT theories, models and frameworks used to guide dissemination or implementation of evidence-based interventions targeted to prevention and/or management of cancer or other chronic diseases exists.

    “To our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive review of KT theories, models and frameworks that have been used to guide dissemination or implementation of evidence-based interventions targeted to prevention and/or management of cancer or other types of chronic diseases.”
8 of 8

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Intervention-setting percentages differ from Table 1

    Minor

    The text gives 35%, 23%, and 21% for community, outpatient clinic, and multiple settings, respectively. Table 1 gives 36%, 24%, and 22% for those categories.

  • North America share differs between text and Table 1

    Minor

    The text reports 74% of studies in North America, while Table 1 reports 73% (438 of 596 studies).

  • Intervention-target percentages differ from Table 1

    Minor

    The text reports 85% targeting patients/general public and 31% targeting healthcare professionals; Table 1 reports 84% and 33%, respectively.

3 of 3

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Strifler, L., Cardoso, R., McGowan, J., Cogo, E., Nincic, V., Khan, P. A., Scott, A., Ghassemi, M., MacDonald, H., Lai, Y., Treister, V., Tricco, A. C., & Straus, S. E.
Affiliations
  • St. Michael's Hospital (CA)
  • University of Ottawa (CA)
Corresponding author
Straus, Sharon E.
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-08
Volume
100
Pages
92-102
ISSN
0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.04.008
OpenAlex
W2796645918
Cited by
227
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 39 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 41 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 4 · 2016: 2
FWCI
3.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • TSpace (University of Toronto) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • Partenariat Canadien Contre Le Cancer
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
Keywords
knowledge translation, implementation model, dissemination, evidence-based interventions, cancer prevention, chronic disease management, implementation planning, behavior change, organizational change, systemic change
MeSH terms
Female, Humans, Male, Models, Theoretical, Databases, Bibliographic, Evidence-Based Medicine, Translational Research, Biomedical

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-06.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-06.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review