Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 299

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 40 of the 40 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Exploring the function and effectiveness of knowledge brokers as facilitators of knowledge translation in health-related settings: a systematic review and thematic analysis

Open access
Bornbaum, Catherine C., Kornas, Kathy, Peirson, Leslea, Rosella, Laura C.·2015·Implementation Science

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Knowledge brokers (KBs) work collaboratively with key stakeholders to facilitate the transfer and exchange of information in a given context. Currently, there is a perceived lack of evidence about the effectiveness of knowledge brokering and the factors that influence its success as a knowledge translation (KT) mechanism. Thus, the goal of this review was to systematically gather evidence regarding the nature of knowledge brokering in health-related settings and determine if KBs effectively contributed to KT in these settings. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted using a search strategy designed by a health research librarian. Eight electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ERIC, Scopus, SocINDEX, and Health Business Elite) and relevant grey literature sources were searched using English language restrictions. Two reviewers independently screened the abstracts, reviewed full-text articles, extracted data, and performed quality assessments. Analysis included a confirmatory thematic approach. To be included, studies must have occurred in a health-related setting, reported on an actual application of knowledge brokering, and be available in English. RESULTS: In total, 7935 records were located. Following removal of duplicates, 6936 abstracts were screened and 240 full-text articles were reviewed. Ultimately, 29 articles, representing 22 unique studies, were included in the thematic analysis. Qualitative (n = 18), quantitative (n = 1), and mixed methods (n = 6) designs were represented in addition to grey literature sources (n = 4). Findings indicated that KBs performed a diverse range of tasks across multiple health-related settings; results supported the KB role as a 'knowledge manager', 'linkage agent', and 'capacity builder'. Our systematic review explored outcome data from a subset of studies (n = 8) for evidence of changes in knowledge, skills, and policies or practices related to knowledge brokering. Two studies met standards for acceptable methodological rigour; thus, findings were inconclusive regarding KB effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: As knowledge managers, linkage agents, and capacity builders, KBs performed many and varied tasks to transfer and exchange information across health-related stakeholders, settings, and sectors. How effectively they fulfilled their role in facilitating KT processes is unclear; further rigourous research is required to answer this question and discern the potential impact of KBs on education, practice, and policy.

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/s13012-015-0351-9

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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 40 references

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. Dobbins M, DeCorby K, Robeson P, Ciliska D, Thomas H, Hanna S, et al., editors. The power of tailored messaging: preliminary results from Canada’s first trial on knowledge brokering. Ottawa: Canadian Cochrane Colloquium; 2007.
  2. Morley M. Knowledge for regional NRM: connecting researchers & practitioners. Canberra: Land and Water Australia; 2006.
  3. Fisher C. Knowledge brokering and intermediary concepts: analysis of an e-discussion on the Knowledge Brokers’ Forum. UK: Brighton; 2011.
  4. Crabtree B, Miller W. Doing qualitative research 2nd edition ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.; 1999.
  5. Healy J, Maxwell J, Hong P, Lin V. Responding to requests for information on health systems from policy makers in Asian countries. Geneva: Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research; 2007.
  6. Richards T. Europe’s knowledge broker. BMJ. 2009;339:b3871. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b3871 . · doi:10.1136/bmj.b3871
  7. Frank J, Frost H, Geddes R, Haw S, Jackson C, Jepson R, et al. Experiences of knowledge brokering for evidence-informed public health, policy, and practice: 3 years of the Scottish Collaboration for Public Health Research and Policy. Lancet. 2012;380:S39. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(13)60395-5 . · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(13)60395-5
  8. Gerrish K, McDonnell A, Nolan M, Guillaume L, Kirshbaum M, Tod A. The role of advanced practice nurses in knowledge brokering as a means of promoting evidence-based practice among clinical nurses. J Adv Nurs. 2011;67(9):2004–14. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2011.05642.x . · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2011.05642.x

Cited by

See all 299

Metadata

Authors
Bornbaum, C. C., Kornas, K., Peirson, L., & Rosella, L. C.
Venue
Implementation Science
Published
2015-11-20
Volume
10
Issue
1
Pages
162-162
ISSN
1748-5908 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2174826059
Cited by
299
References
40
FWCI
4.18
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: Exploring the function and effectiveness of knowledge brokers as facilitators of knowledge translation in health-related settings: a systematic review and thematic analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/s13012-015-0351-9
The paper
Bornbaum, C. C., Kornas, K., Peirson, L., & Rosella, L. C. (2015). Exploring the function and effectiveness of knowledge brokers as facilitators of knowledge translation in health-related settings: a systematic review and thematic analysis. Implementation Science. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0351-9

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.