The global focus on achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and implementing Universal Health Coverage (UHC) has resulted in an increased demand for research evidence to inform policy and practice (1, 2). SDG 3 is about ensuring healthy lives and promoting wellbeing at all ages, which is closely linked with the aims of UHC (3). Universal health coverage aims to ensure that all people have access to needed and effective health services (including prevention, promotion, treatment, rehabilitation and palliation) of sufficient quality, without exposing users to financial hardship (4). However, despite the widely agreed SDGs and the UHC model, there is limited use of high-quality research on the effectiveness, acceptability and cost implications of health system, healthcare or public health interventions to inform policy, practice and implementation (5). Although research evidence on health-related interventions and systems are increasingly available, there are challenges around translating research evidence into policy and practice (5, 6, 7, 8).
Translating research evidence into policy and practice, or knowledge translation (KT), entails a “dynamic and iterative process that includes synthesis, dissemination, exchange and ethically sound application of knowledge to improve health, provide more effective health services and products and strengthen the healthcare system” (9). Limited institutional support and/or buy-in from leadership and relevant stakeholders for KT has been linked to several challenges (10, 11, 12, 13, 14), for example: poor infrastructure and inadequate financial and technical resources specifically for KT, inadequate soft skills, relationships and networks amongst evidence producers and evidence users negative attitudes and poor knowledge about what KT is and how to do it, and scarce local research evidence relevant to micro-level policy and practice, amongst others (10, 11, 12, 13, 14).
KT platforms (KTPs) are intermediary organisations, initiatives or networks whose intent is to overcome a range of inter-relationship and contextual challenges (see examples above) using a multitude of strategies and tools. These include collaborative knowledge production, capacity building, information exchange and dialogue to facilitate relevant and timely engagement between researchers and different health decision-makers (e.g. patients, health practitioners, health care managers, policy-makers and funders). There are currently a wide range of definitions and descriptions (15–25) as well as models and frameworks (26, 27) of KTPs in the literature. But there is only one published systematic review on KTPs by Partridge et al., which primarily synthesised the lessons learned about activities, outputs, outcomes and impacts from KTPs specifically in LMICs (28).
Firstly, there is a need to synthesise the different definitions and descriptions of KTPs in the literature so as to provide a common and nuanced understanding of what KTPs are. This is necessary for planning and carrying out comparisons and evaluations of KTPs, as one mechanism for strengthening their overall usefulness. Secondly, there is a need to synthesise a wider range of characteristics of KTPs beyond those characteristics explored in the Partridge review; for example: strengths and limitations of different KTP models, funding and sustainability of KTPs, current operational status (determined using evidence from the scoping review and institutional websites), and the relationship between design and implementation factors or characteristics and successful functioning of KTPs and their influence to policy and practice. Having a better understanding of the different characteristics and types of KTPs can inform funders and governments about their implementation, sustainability and overall support for evidence-informed policy and practice. Additionally, identifying the different types of KTPs that can support evidence-informed policy and practice in local settings is critical, especially in the context of many public health and health system interventions for achieving UHC and the SDGs. For example, in the case that a KTP exists at the local level, decision-makers need to understand what KTPs are (including what KT is in general) and their role in supporting UHC decision-making processes. And thirdly, there is a need to synthesise the research methods used in the literature for mapping and evaluating KTPs. Identifying the different qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods used for mapping and evaluating KTPs is an important step in exploring how different methods can be used or combined to address the gap for more robust evaluations of KTPs. At a practical level, mapping KTPs can help like-minded organisations to identify opportunities that avoid duplication and amplify collaboration, particularly in settings where there are limited resources and expertise.
This scoping review therefore aims (a) provide a more nuanced understanding of the characteristics of KTPs and (b) assess and consolidate research methods used in mapping and evaluating KTPs to inform standardised process and impact evaluation. The review authors intend to use the review findings to inform a future research study on mapping, evaluating and strengthening KTPs that can support UHC policy, practice and implementation in South Africa.
Identifying the research questions
This scoping review is on the characteristics and methods for mapping and evaluating KTPs. The specific objectives of the scoping review are:
-
To identify and synthesise definitions as well as characteristics of KTPs (for example: activities, processes, outputs, purpose, functions, models, stakeholders, positioning, funding, strengths, limitations, monitoring, impact and status);
-
To identify and synthesise the design and implementation factors or characteristics that facilitate and/or hinder the successful functioning of KTPs and their influence to policy and practice;
-
To identify and summarise the various research methods for mapping and evaluating KTPs (that is: qualitative, quantitative and mixed), and where evaluations were conducted, to synthesise their outcomes (e.g. impact, success or failure); and
-
To explore the potential for developing a new or enhancing an existing framework for classifying KTPs.
Identifying relevant studies
We will use the scoping review methods outlined by Arksey and O’Malley (29). The proposed steps are: identifying the research question; identifying relevant studies; study selection; charting the data; collating, summarising and reporting the results; and consultation (i.e. seeking insights beyond those in the literature from content experts). To report our review findings, we will follow the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation (Additional file 1) (30).
Any published, empirical and conceptual, health research studies from anywhere on KTPs will be eligible. Eligible studies will include a definition or description of what a KTP is and/or include one or more methods for mapping and/or evaluating KTPs. We will consider any type of qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods research.
The search will identify all relevant studies without data, language or geographic restrictions. We will search the following electronic databases: PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, EMBASE, Global Health and Web of Science. Search strings will include keywords and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms related to knowledge translation platform (concept A) (e.g. policy brief, deliberate dialogue, knowledge exchange) and evidence-informed decision-making (concept B) (e.g. health policy, policymaking). We have developed a preliminary search strategy in the PubMed database (see Additional file 2). To finalise our search strategy, we will apply an iterative approach to check whether known articles that meet our eligibility criteria were found by the search. We will also identify missing keywords and MeSH terms to add to our search strategy from the iterative process. In addition to the electronic searches, review authors will search the reference lists of all included studies and key references (for example, relevant systematic reviews) and (b) contact authors of included studies and/or experts in the field for additional references.