@article{fdi:010088924,
  title = {{A} scoping review of theories, models and frameworks used or proposed to evaluate knowledge mobilization strategies},
  author = {{Z}iam, {S}. and {L}anoue, {S}. and {M}c{S}ween-{C}adieux, {E}. and {G}ervais, {M}. {J}. and {L}ane, {J}. and {G}aid, {D}. and {C}houinard, {L}. {J}. and {D}agenais, {C}. and {R}idde, {V}al{\'e}ry and {J}ean, {E}. and {F}leury, {F}. {C}. and {H}ong, {Q}. {N}. and {P}rigent, {O}.},
  editor = {},
  language = {{ENG}},
  abstract = {{B}ackground {E}valuating knowledge mobilization strategies ({KM}b) presents challenges for organizations seeking to understand their impact to improve {KM}b effectiveness. {M}oreover, the large number of theories, models, and frameworks ({TMF}s) available can be confusing for users. {T}herefore, the purpose of this scoping review was to identify and describe the characteristics of {TMF}s that have been used or proposed in the literature to evaluate {KM}b strategies. {M}ethods {A} scoping review methodology was used. {A}rticles were identified through searches in electronic databases, previous reviews and reference lists of included articles. {T}itles, abstracts and full texts were screened in duplicate. {D}ata were charted using a piloted data charting form. {D}ata extracted included study characteristics, {KM}b characteristics, and {TMF}s used or proposed for {KM}b evaluation. {A}n adapted version of {N}ilsen ({I}mplement {S}ci 10:53, 2015) taxonomy and the {E}xpert {R}ecommendations for {I}mplementing {C}hange ({ERIC}) taxonomy ({P}owell et al. in {I}mplement {S}ci 10:21, 2015) guided data synthesis. {R}esults {O}f the 4763 search results, 505 were retrieved, and 88 articles were eligible for review. {T}hese consisted of 40 theoretical articles (45.5%), 44 empirical studies (50.0%) and four protocols (4.5%). {T}he majority were published after 2010 (n = 70, 79.5%) and were health related (n = 71, 80.7%). {H}alf of the studied {KM}b strategies were implemented in only four countries: {C}anada, {A}ustralia, the {U}nited {S}tates and the {U}nited {K}ingdom (n = 42, 47.7%). {O}ne-third used existing {TMF}s (n = 28, 31.8%). {A}ccording to the adapted {N}ilsen taxonomy, process models (n = 34, 38.6%) and evaluation frameworks (n = 28, 31.8%) were the two most frequent types of {TMF}s used or proposed to evaluate {KM}b. {A}ccording to the {ERIC} taxonomy, activities to "train and educate stakeholders" (n = 46, 52.3%) were the most common, followed by activities to "develop stakeholder interrelationships" (n = 23, 26.1%). {A}nalysis of the {TMF}s identified revealed relevant factors of interest for the evaluation of {KM}b strategies, classified into four dimensions: context, process, effects and impacts.{C}onclusions{T}his scoping review provides an overview of the many {KM}b {TMF}s used or proposed. {T}he results provide insight into potential dimensions and components to be considered when assessing {KM}b strategies.},
  keywords = {{K}nowledge mobilization ; {K}nowledge translation ; {T}heories, models, and frameworks ; {E}valuation ; {S}coping review},
  booktitle = {},
  journal = {{H}ealth {R}esearch {P}olicy and {S}ystems},
  volume = {22},
  numero = {1},
  pages = {8 [18 ]},
  ISSN = {1478-4505},
  year = {2024},
  DOI = {10.1186/s12961-023-01090-7},
  URL = {https://www.documentation.ird.fr/hor/fdi:010088924},
}