Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Systematic Reviews
Published in: Systematic Reviews 1/2021

01-12-2021 | Protocol

The use of theories, frameworks, or models in knowledge translation studies in healthcare settings in China: a scoping review protocol

Authors: Junqiang Zhao, Xuejing Li, Lijiao Yan, Yamei Yu, Jiale Hu, Shelly-Anne Li, Wenjun Chen

Published in: Systematic Reviews | Issue 1/2021

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Knowledge translation (KT) theories, frameworks, and models (TFMs) can help guide and explain KT processes, and facilitate the evaluation of implementation outcomes. They play a critical role in conducting KT research and practice. Currently, little is known about the usage of TFMs in KT in Chinese healthcare settings. The aim of this scoping review is to identify which TFMs had been used for KT in healthcare settings in China, and how these TFMs were used.

Methods

The protocol for this scoping review is in accordance with the Arksey and O’Malley framework and further enhanced by the recommendations suggested by Levac et al. We will search 8 databases (4 Chinese and 4 English) to identify relevant studies. Four reviewers (2 for Chinese, 2 for English) will independently screen studies based on the eligibility criteria. The basic characteristic of studies and the TFMs utilization (i.e., what, why, and how) will be extracted. Methodological quality and reporting quality will be assessed using the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool (MMAT) and the Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies (StaRI) (or Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence, SQUIRE 2.0 for quality improvement studies), respectively. All the retrieved TFMs will be categorized into Nilsen’s classifications of TFMs for KT research. We will employ the qualitative content analysis approach to summarize how these TFMs have been used, and the rationale. A consultation will be conducted through a 1-h interactive virtual meeting with an expert panel of knowledge users.

Discussion

By conducting this scoping review, we expect to gain a comprehensive and in-depth understanding of why and how TFMs have been used in KT research and practice in China, and to identify gaps and provide recommendations for more efficient and meaningful use of TFMs in the future.

Systematic review registration

This review has been registered with the Open Science Framework (10.17605/OSF.IO/8NXAM).
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Graham ID, et al. Lost in knowledge translation: time for a map? J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2006;26(1):13–24.CrossRefPubMed
2.
3.
Morris ZS, Wooding S, Grant J. The answer is 17 years, what is the question: understanding time lags in translational research. J R Soc Med. 2011;104(12):510–20.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
4.
Grant J, Green L, Mason B. Basic research and health: a reassessment of the scientific basis for the support of biomedical science. Res Eval. 2003;12(3):217–24.CrossRef
5.
Balas EA, Boren SA. Managing clinical knowledge for health care improvement. In: Yearbook of medical informatics. Schattauer: Stuttgart; 2000. p. 65–70.
6.
7.
Zhao J, Varin MD, Graham ID. Guidelines do not self-implement: time for a research paradigm shift from massive creation to effective implementation in evidence-based medicine research in China. BMJ Evid Based Med. 2019;25(4):118-9.
8.
9.
Glasgow RE, et al. National Institutes of Health approaches to dissemination and implementation science: current and future directions. Am J Public Health. 2012;102(7):1274–81.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
10.
11.
Mdege ND, et al. Systematic review of stepped wedge cluster randomized trials shows that design is particularly used to evaluate interventions during routine implementation. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(9):936–48.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Curran GM, et al. Effectiveness-implementation hybrid designs: combining elements of clinical effectiveness and implementation research to enhance public health impact. Med Care. 2012;50(3):217–26.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
13.
Pinnock H, et al. Developing standards for reporting implementation studies of complex interventions (StaRI): a systematic review and e-Delphi. Implement Sci. 2015;10:42.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
14.
15.
16.
Zhao J, et al. Exploring on nursing educational innovation with best practice guidelines to cultivate evidence-informed practice. J Nurs Educ Pract. 2017;7(1):6.
17.
Cheng L, Feng S, Hu Y. Evidence-based nursing implementation in mainland China: a scoping review. Nurs Outlook. 2017;65(1):27–35.PubMedCrossRef
18.
19.
Michie S, et al. From theory to intervention: mapping theoretically derived behavioural determinants to behaviour change techniques. Appl Psychol. 2008;57(4):660–80.CrossRef
20.
Cane J, O'Connor D, Michie S. Validation of the theoretical domains framework for use in behaviour change and implementation research. Implement Sci. 2012;7:37.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
21.
Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovations. 5th ed. New York: Free Press; 2003.
22.
May C, Finch T. Implementing, embedding, and integrating practices: an outline of normalization process theory. Sociol J British Sociolog Assoc. 2009;43(3):535–54.
23.
Glasgow RE, Vogt TM, Boles SM. Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework. Am J Public Health. 1999;89(9):1322–7.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
24.
Hull L, et al. Designing high-quality implementation research: development, application, feasibility and preliminary evaluation of the implementation science research development (ImpRes) tool and guide. Implement Sci. 2019;14(1):80.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
25.
Strifler L, et al. Scoping review identifies significant number of knowledge translation theories, models, and frameworks with limited use. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;100:92–102.PubMedCrossRef
26.
27.
Colquhoun HL, et al. A scoping review of the use of theory in studies of knowledge translation. Can J Occup Ther. 2010;77(5):270–9.PubMedCrossRef
28.
Eccles M, et al. Changing the behavior of healthcare professionals: the use of theory in promoting the uptake of research findings. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58(2):107–12.PubMedCrossRef
29.
30.
Zhou Y, et al. Designing and practice of a training program centering on promoting evidence into clinical practice. J Nurs Sci (Chinese). 2018;33(12):59–62.
31.
Ge X, et al. A researcher-manager-practitioner collaborative working model of evidence-based practice. J Nurs Sci (Chinese). 2017;32(4):23–5.
32.
Chen W, et al. The professional activities of nurse managers in Chinese hospitals: a cross-sectional survey in Hunan Province. J Nurs Manag. 2020;00:1-9.
33.
Hu Y, et al. Promoting the transformation of nursing knowledge through evidence-based nursing practice. J Nurs Train (Chinese). 2015;30(11):961–3.
34.
Yan L, et al. Exploration of the methodology of nursing guideline implementation in clinical settings. Chin J Evid-Based Med (Chinese). 2019;19(7):863–70.
35.
Pearson A, et al. The JBI model of evidence-based healthcare. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2005;3(8):207–15.PubMed
36.
Graham ID, Logan J. Translating research-innovations in knowledge transfer and continuity of care. Can J Nurs Res. 2004;36(2):89-103.
37.
Stevens K. The impact of evidence-based practice in nursing and the next big ideas. Online J Issues Nurs. 2013;18(2).
38.
Arksey H, O'Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Method. 2005;8(1):19–32.CrossRef
39.
40.
Tricco AC, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Munn Z, et al. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):143.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
42.
Eccles MP, Mittman BS. Welcome to implementation science. Implement Sci. 2006;1(1).
43.
Rycroft-Malone J. Theory and knowledge translation: setting some coordinates. Nurs Res. 2007;56(4):S78–85.PubMedCrossRef
44.
45.
46.
Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J. 2009;26(2):91–108.PubMedCrossRef
47.
Souto RQ, et al. Systematic mixed studies reviews: updating results on the reliability and efficiency of the mixed methods appraisal tool. Int J Nurs Stud. 2015;52(1):500–1.PubMedCrossRef
48.
49.
Ogrinc G, et al. SQUIRE 2.0 (standards for QUality improvement reporting excellence): revised publication guidelines from a detailed consensus process. J Contin Educ Nurs. 2015;46(11):501–7.PubMedCrossRef
50.
Hsieh H-F, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(9):1277–88.PubMedCrossRef
51.
Kothari A, McCutcheon C, Graham ID. Defining integrated knowledge translation and moving forward: a response to recent commentaries. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2017;6(5):299–300.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
Metadata
Title
The use of theories, frameworks, or models in knowledge translation studies in healthcare settings in China: a scoping review protocol
Authors
Junqiang Zhao
Xuejing Li
Lijiao Yan
Yamei Yu
Jiale Hu
Shelly-Anne Li
Wenjun Chen
Publication date
01-12-2021
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Systematic Reviews / Issue 1/2021
Electronic ISSN: 2046-4053
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01567-4

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

Systematic Reviews 1/2021 Go to the issue

Research

Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy for age-related macular degeneration: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Protocol

Management strategies for patients with subclinical hypothyroidism: a protocol for an umbrella review

Protocol

Structural stigma and its impact on healthcare for consumers with borderline personality disorder: protocol for a scoping review

Protocol

Work-related interventions for preventing back pain—protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Research

Inflammation scores as prognostic biomarkers in small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Protocol

Effectiveness and experiences of the Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes (ECHO) Model in developing competencies among healthcare professionals: a mixed methods systematic review protocol