Background: Application of knowledge translation (KT) theories, models, and frameworks (TMFs) is one method for successfully incorporating evidence into clinical care. However, there are multiple KT TMFs and little guidance on which to select. This study sought to identify and describe available full-spectrum KT TMFs to subsequently guide users. Methods: A scoping review was completed. Articles were identified through searches within electronic databases, previous reviews, grey literature, and consultation with KT experts. Search terms included combinations of KT terms and theory-related terms. Included citations had to describe full-spectrum KT TMFs that had been applied or tested. Titles/abstracts and full-text articles were screened independently by two investigators. Each KT TMF was described by its characteristics including name, context, key components, how it was used, primary target audience, levels of use, and study outcomes. Each KT TMF was also categorized into theoretical approaches as process models, determinant frameworks, classic theories, implementation theories, and evaluation frameworks. Within each category, KT TMFs were compared and contrasted to identify similarities and unique characteristics. Results: Electronic searches yielded 7160 citations. Additional citations were identified from previous reviews (n = 41) and bibliographies of included full-text articles (n = 6). Thirty-six citations describing 36 full-spectrum were identified. In 24 KT TMFs, the primary target audience was multi-level including patients/public, professionals, organizational, and financial/regulatory. The majority of the KT TMFs were used within public health, followed by research (organizational, translation, health), or in multiple contexts. Twenty-six could be used at the individual, organization, or policy levels, five at the individual/organization levels, three at the individual level only, and two at the organizational/policy level. Categorization of the KT TMFs resulted in 18 process models, eight classic theories, three determinant frameworks, three evaluation frameworks, and four that fit more than one category. There were no KT TMFs that fit the implementation theory category. Within each category, similarities and unique characteristics emerged through comparison. Conclusions: A systematic compilation of existing full-spectrum KT TMFs, categorization into different approaches, and comparison has been provided in a user-friendly way. This list provides options for users to select from when designing KT projects and interventions. Trial registration: A protocol outlining the methodology of this scoping review was developed and registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018088564).

Depression and anxiety remain under-diagnosed and under-treated in those with neurologic diseases such as dementia or Parkinson’s Disease (PD). Our objectives were to first, to provide a synthesis of high quality guidelines available for the identification and management of depression or anxiety in those with dementia or PD. Second, to identify areas for improvement for future guidelines. We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and EMBASE (2009 to July 24, 2015), grey literature (83 sources; July 24-Sept 6, 2015), and bibliographies of included studies. Included studies were evaluated for quality by four independent reviewers the AGREE II tool. Guideline characteristics, statements and recommendations relevant to depression or anxiety for dementia and PD were then extracted. (PROSPERO CRD: 42016014584) 8121 citations were reviewed with 31 full text articles included for assessment with the AGREE II tool. 17 were of sufficient quality for inclusion. Mean overall quality scores were between 4.25 to 6.5. Domain scores were lowest in the areas of stakeholder involvement, applicability, and editorial independence. Recommendations for the screening and diagnosis of depression were found for PD and dementia. There was little evidence to guide diagnosis or management of anxiety. Non-pharmacologic therapies were recommended for dementia patients. Most advocated pharmacologic treatment for depression, for both PD and dementia, but did not specify an agent due to lack of evidence. The available recent high quality guidelines outline several recommendations for the management of comorbid depression or anxiety in PD or dementia. However there remain significant gaps in the evidence.

Current acute care surgical practices do not focus on the unique needs of older adults. Adverse outcomes in older patients result from a complex interrelationship between baseline vulnerability and insults experienced during hospitalization. The purpose of this study is to assess the organizational readiness and the barriers and facilitators for the implementation of elder-friendly interventions in the acute care of unplanned abdominal surgery patients. This cross-sectional mixed methods study included a convenience sample of clinician stakeholder groups. Eight focus groups were conducted with 33 surgical team members including: 10 health care aides, 6 licensed practical nurses, 6 registered nurses, 4 nurse managers and 7 surgeons, to identify barriers and facilitators to the implementation of an elder-friendly surgical unit. Audio recordings of the focus groups were transcribed verbatim and analysed using interpretive description techniques. Transcripts were coded along with explanatory memos to generate a detailed description of participant experiences. Themes were identified followed by refining the codes. Participants also completed the Organizational Readiness for Implementing Change questionnaire. Differences in organizational readiness scores across clinician stakeholder groups were assessed using Kruskal-Wallice tests. Mann-Whitney tests (Bonferroni’s corrections for multiple comparisons) were conducted to assess pair-wise relationships. The focus group data were conceptualized to represent facilitators and barriers to change at two levels of care delivery. Readiness to change at the organizational level was evident in five categories that reflected the barriers and facilitators to implementing an elder-friendly surgical unit. These included education, environment, staffing, policies and other research projects. At the individual level barriers and facilitators were apparent in staff members’ acceptance of new roles and duties with other staff, family and patients. Examples of these included communication, teamwork and leadership. The mean change commitment and change efficacy scores on the Organizational Readiness for Implementing Change Questionnaire were 3.7 (0.8) and 3.5 (0.9) respectively. No statistically significant differences were detected between the stakeholder groups. Staff are interested in contributing to improved care for elderly surgical patients; however, opportunities were identified to enhance facilitators and reduce barriers in advance of implementing the elder-friendly surgical unit intervention.

Health Technology Reassessment (HTR) is an emerging field that shifts the focus from traditional methods of technology adoption to managing technology throughout its lifecycle. HTR is a mechanism to improve patient care and system efficiency through a reallocation of resources away from low-value care towards interventions and technologies that are high value. To achieve this, the outputs of HTR and its recommendations must be translated into practice. The evolving field of knowledge translation (KT) can provide guidance to improve the uptake of evidence-informed policies and recommendations resulting from the process of HTR. This paper argues how the theories, models and frameworks from KT could advance the HTR process. First, common KT theories, models and frameworks are presented. Second, facilitators and barriers to KT within the context of HTR are summarized from the literature. Facilitators and barriers to KT include ensuring a solid research evidence-base for the technology under reassessment, assessing the climate and context, understanding the social an political context, initiating linkage and exchange, having a structured HTR Process, adequate resources, and understanding the roles of researchers, knowledge users, and stakeholders can enhance knowledge translation of HTR outputs. Third, three case examples at the individual (micro), organizational (meso), and policy (macro) levels are used to illustrate to describe how a KT theory, model or framework could be applied to a HTR project. These case studies show how selecting and applying KT theories, models and frameworks can facilitate the implementation of HTR recommendations. HTR and KT are synergistic processes that can be used to optimize technology use throughout its lifecycle. We argue that the application of KT theories, models and frameworks, and the assessment of barriers and facilitators to KT can facilitate translation of HTR recommendations into practice.

As implementation science advances, the number of interventions to promote the translation of evidence into healthcare, health systems, or health policy is growing. Accordingly, classification schemes for these knowledge translation (KT) interventions have emerged. A recent scoping review identified 51 classification schemes of KT interventions to integrate evidence into healthcare practice; however, the review did not evaluate the quality of the classification schemes or provide detailed information to assist researchers in selecting a scheme for their context and purpose. This study aimed to further examine and assess the quality of these classification schemes of KT interventions, and provide information to aid researchers when selecting a classification scheme. We abstracted the following information from each of the original 51 classification scheme articles: authors’ objectives; purpose of the scheme and field of application; socioecologic level (individual, organizational, community, system); adaptability (broad versus specific); target group (patients, providers, policy-makers), intent (policy, education, practice), and purpose (dissemination versus implementation). Two reviewers independently evaluated the methodological quality of the development of each classification scheme using an adapted version of the AGREE II tool. Based on these assessments, two independent reviewers reached consensus about whether to recommend each scheme for researcher use, or not. Of the 51 original classification schemes, we excluded seven that were not specific classification schemes, not accessible or duplicates. Of the remaining 44 classification schemes, nine were not recommended. Of the 35 recommended classification schemes, ten focused on behaviour change and six focused on population health. Many schemes (n = 29) addressed practice considerations. Fewer schemes addressed educational or policy objectives. Twenty-five classification schemes had broad applicability, six were specific, and four had elements of both. Twenty-three schemes targeted health providers, nine targeted both patients and providers and one targeted policy-makers. Most classification schemes were intended for implementation rather than dissemination. Thirty-five classification schemes of KT interventions were developed and reported with sufficient rigour to be recommended for use by researchers interested in KT in healthcare. Our additional categorization and quality analysis will aid in selecting suitable classification schemes for research initiatives in the field of implementation science.