Cited by 511Health Policy Implementation ScienceHealth Sciences Research and EducationResearch, Science, and Academia

Developing a Framework for Transferring Knowledge Into Action: A Thematic Analysis of the Literature

Open access
Ward, Vicky, House, Allan, Hamer, Susan·2009·Journal of Health Services Research & Policy

Abstract

Objectives: Although there is widespread agreement about the importance of transferring knowledge into action, we still lack high quality information about what works, in which settings and with whom. While there are a large number of models and theories for knowledge transfer interventions, the majority are untested, meaning that their applicability and relevance is largely unknown. This paper describes the development of a conceptual framework of translating knowledge into action and discusses how it can be used for developing a useful model of the knowledge transfer process. Methods: A narrative review of the knowledge transfer literature identified 28 different models which explained all or part of the knowledge transfer process. The models were subjected to a thematic analysis to identify individual components and the types of processes used when transferring knowledge into action. The results were used to build a conceptual framework of the process. Results: Five common components of the knowledge transfer process were identified: problem identification and communication; knowledge/research development and selection; analysis of context; knowledge transfer activities or interventions; and knowledge/research utilization. We also identified three types of knowledge transfer processes: a linear process; a cyclical process; and a dynamic multidirectional process. From these results a conceptual framework of knowledge transfer was developed. The framework illustrates the five common components of the knowledge transfer process and shows that they are connected via a complex, multidirectional set of interactions. As such the framework allows for the individual components to occur simultaneously or in any given order and to occur more than once during the knowledge transfer process. Conclusion: Our framework provides a foundation for gathering evidence from case studies of knowledge transfer interventions. We propose that future empirical work is designed to test and refine the relevance, importance and applicability of each of the components in order to build a more useful model of knowledge transfer which can serve as a practical checklist for planning or evaluating knowledge transfer activities.

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 · 10.1258/jhsrp.2009.008120

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • A number of literature reviews of implementation frameworks have also been conducted, concentrating on particular implementation concepts, such as a particular stage, or specifically on either the factors, strategies or evaluations, rather than addressing all the concepts that could affect an innovation's implementation.

    “A number of literature reviews of implementation frameworks have also been conducted, concentrating on particular implementation concepts, such as a particular stage, or specifically on either the factors, strategies or evaluations, rather than addressing all the concepts that could affect an innovation’s implementation [13,17,19-26].”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 31 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [4]Lord Darzi Our NHS, Our Future: NHS next stage review interim report 2007 Department of Health London

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ward, V., House, A., & Hamer, S.
Affiliations
University of Leeds (GB)
Corresponding author
Ward, Vicky
Venue
Journal of Health Services Research & Policy
Published
2009-07
Volume
14
Issue
3
Pages
156-164
ISSN
  • 1355-8196 (ISSN-L)
  • 1758-1060
OpenAlex
W2094227722
Cited by
511
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 37 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 52 · 2020: 44 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 30 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 31 · 2014: 31 · 2013: 40 · 2012: 25
FWCI
3.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Health Services Research & Policy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Research, Science, and Academia
Keywords
knowledge transfer, knowledge translation, conceptual framework, knowledge application, contextual analysis, problem identification, evidence-based practice
MeSH terms
Diffusion of Innovation, Documentation, Humans, Models, Theoretical, Evidence-Based Medicine, Knowledge, Biomedical Research

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