CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2,407Health Policy Implementation ScienceHealth Sciences Research and EducationClinical practice guidelines implementation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 101 of the 101 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Knowledge translation of research findings

Open access
Grimshaw, Jeremy M, Eccles, Martin P, Lavis, John N, Hill, Sophie J, Squires, Janet E·2012·Implementation Science
DOI 10.1186/1748-5908-7-50PMC PMC3462671
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: One of the most consistent findings from clinical and health services research is the failure to translate research into practice and policy. As a result of these evidence-practice and policy gaps, patients fail to benefit optimally from advances in healthcare and are exposed to unnecessary risks of iatrogenic harms, and healthcare systems are exposed to unnecessary expenditure resulting in significant opportunity costs. Over the last decade, there has been increasing international policy and research attention on how to reduce the evidence-practice and policy gap. In this paper, we summarise the current concepts and evidence to guide knowledge translation activities, defined as T2 research (the translation of new clinical knowledge into improved health). We structure the article around five key questions: what should be transferred; to whom should research knowledge be transferred; by whom should research knowledge be transferred; how should research knowledge be transferred; and, with what effect should research knowledge be transferred? DISCUSSION: We suggest that the basic unit of knowledge translation should usually be up-to-date systematic reviews or other syntheses of research findings. Knowledge translators need to identify the key messages for different target audiences and to fashion these in language and knowledge translation products that are easily assimilated by different audiences. The relative importance of knowledge translation to different target audiences will vary by the type of research and appropriate endpoints of knowledge translation may vary across different stakeholder groups. There are a large number of planned knowledge translation models, derived from different disciplinary, contextual (i.e., setting), and target audience viewpoints. Most of these suggest that planned knowledge translation for healthcare professionals and consumers is more likely to be successful if the choice of knowledge translation strategy is informed by an assessment of the likely barriers and facilitators. Although our evidence on the likely effectiveness of different strategies to overcome specific barriers remains incomplete, there is a range of informative systematic reviews of interventions aimed at healthcare professionals and consumers (i.e., patients, family members, and informal carers) and of factors important to research use by policy makers. SUMMARY: There is a substantial (if incomplete) evidence base to guide choice of knowledge translation activities targeting healthcare professionals and consumers. The evidence base on the effects of different knowledge translation approaches targeting healthcare policy makers and senior managers is much weaker but there are a profusion of innovative approaches that warrant further evaluation.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1748-5908-7-50

Cites

101 of 101 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Effect sizes of multifaceted interventions by number of interventions.
Figure 1 Effect sizes of multifaceted interventions by number of interventions.CC BY · PubMed Central

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 100 references

Research works printed but not linked: 12

  1. Tarde G: The law of imitiation. 1903, HOLT, New York
  2. Grimshaw J, Eccles MP: Knowledge Translation Of Research Findings. Effective Dissemination of Findings from Research. Edited by: Jonson E. 2008, Institute of Health Economics, Edmonton
  3. Davies H, Powell A, Rushmer R: Healthcare professionals' views on clinician engagement in quality improvement: A literature review. Health Foundation. 2007
  4. Grol R, Wensing M, Eccles MP: Improving patient care: implementing change in clinical practice. 2004, Elsevier, Oxford
  5. Ballini L, Bero L, Eccles MP, Grimshaw J, Gruen RL, Lewin S: Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group. The Cochrane Library About The Cochrane Collaboration (Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs). 2011
  6. Doumit G: Opinion leaders: Effectiveness, Identification, Stability, Specificity, and Mechanism of Action. 2006, PhD Thesis. University Of Ottawa
  7. Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care group: Data collection checklist. EPOC measures for review authors. 2002
  8. Prictor M, Hill S, Car J, Edwards A, Glenton C: Horey D et al. 2010, Cochrane Consumers and Communications Group, About The Cochrane Collaboration (Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs))
  9. Lavis J, Hammill AC, Gildiner A, McDonagh RJ, Wilson MG, Ross SE, Ouimet M, Stoddart GL: A systematic review of the factors that influence the use of research evidence by public policymakers: Report submitted to the Canadian Population Health Initiative. 2005, Hamilton, Canada
  10. Lavis J, Oxman A, Lewin S, Fretheim A: SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP). Health Research Policy and Systems. 2009, 7: I1-10.1186/1478-4505-7-S1-I1. · DOI
  11. Canadian Health Services Research Foundation: Issues in Linkage and Exchange between Researchers and Decision Makers. 1999
  12. Lomas J: Improving research dissemination and uptake in the health sector: Beyond the sound of one hand clapping. 1997, ONT, Mcmaster University, Hamilton, 4-8-2011

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 801–900 of 1,002

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Grimshaw, J. M., Eccles, M. P., Lavis, J. N., Hill, S. J., & Squires, J. E.
Affiliations
  • University of Ottawa (CA)
  • Newcastle University (GB)
  • McMaster University (CA)
  • La Trobe University (AU)
  • Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (CA)
Corresponding author
Grimshaw, Jeremy M
ORCID
Venue
Implementation Science
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2012-05-31
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
50-50
ISSN
1748-5908 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/1748-5908-7-50
PMC
PMC3462671
OpenAlex
W2161459327
Cited by
2,407
References
100
Citations by year
2026: 94 · 2025: 131 · 2024: 228 · 2023: 176 · 2022: 243 · 2021: 239 · 2020: 178 · 2019: 179 · 2018: 183 · 2017: 170 · 2016: 175 · 2015: 179 · 2014: 140 · 2013: 74 · 2012: 12
FWCI
230.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Implementation Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • uO Research (University of Ottawa) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
  • La Trobe University (cc-by)
Funders
  • Hill's Pet Nutrition
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research
  • Medical Research Council
  • National Health and Medical Research Council
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, knowledge-practice gap, evidence-policy gap, target audience, barriers and facilitators, healthcare workers, research utilization
MeSH terms
Humans, Policy Making, Review Literature as Topic, Health Behavior, Information Storage and Retrieval, Databases as Topic, Information Dissemination, Translational Research, Biomedical, Knowledge Management

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