Characteristics and Methods for Mapping and Evaluating Knowledge Translation Platforms: a Scoping Review Protocol

Background Knowledge translation platforms (KTPs) are intermediary organisations, initiatives or networks whose intent is to bridge the evidence into action divide. Strategies and tools include collaborative knowledge production, capacity building, information exchange and dialogue to facilitate relevant and timely engagement between researchers and decision-makers and other relevant stakeholders. With the wide range of denitions and descriptions of KTPs, there is a need to (a) provide a nuanced understanding of characteristics of KTPs and (b) assess and consolidate research methods used in mapping and evaluating KTPs to inform standardised process and impact evaluation. Methods This scoping review will follow the recommended and accepted methods for scoping reviews and reporting guidelines. Eligibility for inclusion is: any conceptual or empirical health-related qualitative, quantitative and/or mixed method studies including (a) denitions, descriptions and models or frameworks of KTPs (including those that do not self-identify as KTPs, e.g. university research centres) and (b) research methods for mapping and/or evaluating KTPs. Searches will be carried out in PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, EMBASE, Global Health and Web of Science using search terms and synonyms for ‘knowledge translation platform’ and ‘evidence-informed decision-making’, without any date, language or geographic restrictions. Two reviewers will independently screen titles and abstracts. One reviewer will complete data extraction for all included studies, and another will check a sample of 50% of the included studies. All reviewers will be involved in the analysis process. The analysis and synthesis will provide: (a) an understanding of the various characteristics of KTPs; b) insight into characteristics or factors that make them resilient and/or adaptive to facilitate impact (i.e. inuence policy and practice); and (c) an overview of the different methods for mapping and evaluating KTPs.


Background
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 su cient quality, without exposing users to nancial 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 nancial and technical resources speci cally 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 de nitions and descriptions (15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)  Firstly, there is a need to synthesise the different de nitions 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 in uence 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 ndings 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 speci c objectives of the scoping review are: To identify and synthesise de nitions 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 in uence 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 ndings, we will follow the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation (Additional le 1) (30).
Any published, empirical and conceptual, health research studies from anywhere on KTPs will be eligible. Eligible studies will include a de nition 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 le 2). To nalise 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 eld for additional references.

Study selection
The search across databases will identify titles and abstracts of relevant studies. The search results will be merged in the Endnote reference management programme where duplicates will be removed. The titles and abstracts will then be uploaded to an electronic programme, such as Covidence or Rayyan, for screening and data extraction. Two review authors will independently screen the titles and abstracts to determine their eligibility for full-text screening. We will retrieve full-texts for titles and abstracts deemed relevant. One review author (BMS) will screen all full-texts and make a nal decision about inclusion. Another review author will check the eligibility of a random sample of 50% of the full-texts. Con icts will be resolved with a third reviewer. The study selection process will be summarised using a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) ow diagram.
Charting the data Data extraction or 'charting of data' will be carried out once we have a nal list of all the studies to be included in the review. Data extraction will be conducted by one review author (BMS) who will collect, sift and sort data according to the objectives. The review author will extract information on the study and author details; research type and study design; research setting and participants; de nitions, descriptions and characteristics of KTPs; and methods used for mapping and/or evaluating KTPs. A second review author will check data extraction of all included studies. Data extraction will be done in Excel to allow for comparison of key items across studies and to allow for synthesis within and across data items. We will not assess the methodological quality of the included studies, as that is the convention for such scoping reviews (29,30).
Collating, summarising, and reporting the results One review author (BMS) will manually code extracted data and categorise by, for example, de nitions, different types of characteristics (e.g. models, functions, impact), different types of research methods (e.g. qualitative, quantitative, mixed) used. A second review author will check the data analysis work on an ongoing basis to ensure quality of the process. We will synthesise the data according to key components (depth) and variations (breadth) across de nitions, characteristics and methods of KTPs.

Consultations
As mentioned earlier, to identify additional relevant studies, we will contact authors of included studies and/or experts in the eld. We will engage with other KT researchers (i.e. those undertaking scienti c research in the KT eld) and KT practitioners (i.e. those designing, implementing, monitoring and evaluating KT interventions) as we carry out different stages of this scoping review to ensure its relevance and applicability. It is an advantage that our review team is made up of both KT researchers and practitioners who have the appropriate content and methods expertise to ensure scienti c rigour of the review. We will shape the review process and ndings according what we know is most useful from experience, and also draw on colleagues working in the eld to validate the ndings and extract key messages or implications for research and practice.

Discussion
To our knowledge, this is the rst scoping review of the evidence on KTPs globally. Our synthesis will be on the wide range of de nitions, descriptions and characteristics of KTPs and aims to provide a better understanding of the relationship between some of the characteristics of KTPs (for example, we will explore the relationship between KTP design, success factors and effectiveness or impact). A key methodological strength of the scoping review is that we will scope for both conceptual and empirical studies, using any study design, and without applying any date, language or geographic restrictions.
Mapping KTPs in this scoping review can help researchers and other stakeholders leading KTPs identify opportunities for collaborating with other KTPs in their local setting or globally. Collaborations amongst KTPs can potentially reduce duplication of efforts and optimise the use of already-limited resources and expertise to effectively engage decision-makers. Additionally, a synthesis of the characteristics of KTPs can help researchers and other stakeholders leading KTPs compare and evaluate the usefulness and effectiveness of different KTPs in relation to theirs. Evidence on the usefulness and effectiveness of KTPs, areas of improvement and the gaps in research can guide government and funding agencies' agendas. The review ndings can also help decision-makers identify KTPs to collaborate with and Page 7/11 provide them with an understanding of how KTPs can support their decision-making processes. And lastly, the synthesis will guide review authors in developing a matrix or framework for classifying KTPs and inform the design of a future study to map and evaluate KTPs that can support UHC policy, practice and implementation in South Africa.
Abbreviations KTP: knowledge translation platform; SDGs: sustainable development goals; UHC: universal health coverage; KT: knowledge translation; PRISMA-ScR: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews; PRISMA: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.