The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A description of a knowledge broker role implemented as part of a randomized controlled trial evaluating three knowledge translation strategies
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: A knowledge broker (KB) is a popular knowledge translation and exchange (KTE) strategy emerging in Canada to promote interaction between researchers and end users, as well as to develop capacity for evidence-informed decision making. A KB provides a link between research producers and end users by developing a mutual understanding of goals and cultures, collaborates with end users to identify issues and problems for which solutions are required, and facilitates the identification, access, assessment, interpretation, and translation of research evidence into local policy and practice. Knowledge-brokering can be carried out by individuals, groups and/or organizations, as well as entire countries. In each case, the KB is linked with a group of end users and focuses on promoting the integration of the best available evidence into policy and practice-related decisions. METHODS: A KB intervention comprised one of three KTE interventions evaluated in a randomized controlled trial. RESULTS: KB activities were classified into the following categories: initial and ongoing needs assessments; scanning the horizon; knowledge management; KTE; network development, maintenance, and facilitation; facilitation of individual capacity development in evidence informed decision making; and g) facilitation of and support for organizational change. CONCLUSION: As the KB role developed during this study, central themes that emerged as particularly important included relationship development, ongoing support, customized approaches, and opportunities for individual and organizational capacity development. The novelty of the KB role in public health provides a unique opportunity to assess the need for and reaction to the role and its associated activities. Future research should include studies to evaluate the effectiveness of KBs in different settings and among different health care professionals, and to explore the optimal preparation and training of KBs, as well as the identification of the personality characteristics most closely associated with KB effectiveness. Studies should also seek to better understand which combination of KB activities are associated with optimal evidence-informed decision making outcomes, and whether the combination changes in different settings and among different health care decision makers.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Diffusion of Innovations in Service Organizations: Systematic Review and Recommendations
GREENHALGH, T., ROBERT, G., MACFARLANE, F., BATE, P., & KYRIAKIDOU, O. (2004) · The Milbank Quarterly · doi:10.1111/j.0887-378x.2004.00325.x · Cited by 7,448
From best evidence to best practice: effective implementation of change in patients' care
Grol, R., & Grimshaw, J. (2003) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(03)14546-1 · Cited by 4,531
Davis, D., O'Brien, M. A. T., Freemantle, N., Wolf, F. M., Mazmanian, P., & Taylor-Vaisey, A. (1999) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.282.9.867 · Cited by 2,364
How Can Research Organizations More Effectively Transfer Research Knowledge to Decision Makers?
LAVIS, J. N., ROBERTSON, D., WOODSIDE, J. M., McLEOD, C. B., & ABELSON, J. (2003) · The Milbank Quarterly · doi:10.1111/1468-0009.t01-1-00052 · Cited by 1,176
Forsetlund, L., & Bjørndal, A. (2002) · Journal of Health Services Research & Policy · doi:10.1258/1355819021927629 · Cited by 33
Cited by
The dark side of coproduction: do the costs outweigh the benefits for health research?
Oliver, K., Kothari, A., & Mays, N. (2019) · Health Research Policy and Systems · doi:10.1186/s12961-019-0432-3 · Cited by 754
Li, S.-A., Jeffs, L., Barwick, M., & Stevens, B. (2018) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-018-0734-5 · Cited by 433
Cvitanovic, C., McDonald, J., & Hobday, A. J. (2016) · Journal of Environmental Management · doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.09.038 · Cited by 361
Bornbaum, C. C., Kornas, K., Peirson, L., & Rosella, L. C. (2015) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/s13012-015-0351-9 · Cited by 299
Approaches for Organizational Learning: A Literature Review
Basten, D., & Haamann, T. (2018) · Sage Open · doi:10.1177/2158244018794224 · Cited by 282
Metadata
- Authors
- Dobbins, M., Robeson, P., Ciliska, D., Hanna, S., Cameron, R., O'Mara, L., DeCorby, K., & Mercer, S.
- Venue
- Implementation Science
- Published
- 2009-04-27
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 23-23
- ISSN
- 1748-5908 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2159579686
- Cited by
- 400
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 36.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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.
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A description of a knowledge broker role implemented as part of a randomized controlled trial evaluating three knowledge translation strategies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1748-5908-4-23
- The paper
- Dobbins, M., Robeson, P., Ciliska, D., Hanna, S., Cameron, R., O'Mara, L., DeCorby, K., & Mercer, S. (2009). A description of a knowledge broker role implemented as part of a randomized controlled trial evaluating three knowledge translation strategies. Implementation Science. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-4-23
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.