In Colombia, formulating and implementing regulatory frameworks for safe access to medicinal cannabis (MC) is significantly challenging. The objective of this study is to mobilize available scientific evidence, public opinions and stakeholders’ perspectives to support policy formulation regulating the use of medicinal cannabis. We conducted a knowledge translation process based on a strategy composed of four components: (1) identifying the best available scientific evidence regarding three elements previously defined in collaboration with decision-makers from Colombia’s Ministry of Health and synthesizing it into an evidence brief, (2) organizing citizens panels (n = 20 citizens) to deliberate on the findings from the evidence brief, (3) developing a policy dialogue with key stakeholders (n = 32 stakeholders) from relevant organization to the issue and (4) conducting semistructured interviews with decision-makers (n = 4 decision-makers) to document their perceptions of the process and any policy developments they associated with it. Evidence was organized and deliberated across three policy elements: (1) regulation limits, where evidence shows that permissible tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) thresholds in MC products vary across jurisdictions, commonly ranging between 0.2 and 1
Community assets (e.g. green spaces, youth centres) can support the mental health of young people. However, less is known about barriers and facilitators to access these assets. This manuscript aims to demonstrate how group model building – a participatory research method grounded in systems thinking – can be used to examine the ways in which community assets support the mental health of “at-risk” young people, while identifying the barriers and facilitators that shape access to these assets. Community-based recruitment was undertaken in rural towns and two urban areas in the South of England. Participants included young people, parents/carers and decision-makers/practitioners. Each group took part in two workshops per site, during which systems maps were developed to visually represent the dynamic interrelationships (feedback loops) within the system. In total, nine group-specific systems maps (one per participant group in each site) were produced and synthesized into a single merged systems map to identify shared patterns and key leverage points. A total of 32 young people aged 14–16 years (identified as “at-risk” by local services or self-identification), 31 parents/carers and 31 decision-makers/practitioners participated in 20 workshops conducted between May and July 2025. Four key feedback loops were identified: (1) increased investment in prevention and early intervention services enhances access to appropriate activities and improves wellbeing; (2) competition for limited resources can reduce staff capacity to deliver services and impacts on sustainability; (3) access to community assets promotes personal development and emotional support through engagement with trusted adults and structured activities; and (4) experiences of discrimination reduce young people’s sense of belonging, limiting their use of public spaces and negatively impacting their emotional wellbeing. Group model building provides a novel and participatory approach to generating shared understanding of how community assets support the mental health of “at-risk” young people. Potential areas for action to address inequalities and improve young people’s mental health nationally include securing resources for prevention and early intervention services, increasing presence of trusted adults in public spaces, enhancing quality of community assets and youth provision offer and improving awareness of existing services.
This manuscript will focus on a research administration skills-building workshop as part of a National Institutes of Health (NIH) G11 grant for administrative development, “Expanded Strengthening of Makerere University’s Research Administration Capacity Program (E-SMAC)”. E-SMAC is a partnership between Makerere University, Uganda and Northwestern University, United States of America. Research administrators (RAs) have grown in both specialization and importance within the university setting as their administrative expertise increases the likelihood of adherence to solicitation requirements and thereby ultimately increases the likelihood of obtaining funding from competitive funding opportunities. There are common skill sets that are required across sponsors and funding opportunities regardless of institutional structure, yet methods for training RAs in fundamental grants management within the low- to middle-income countries (LMIC) setting have not been examined. This study assessed the core skills and learning outcomes of a RA skills-building workshop at Makerere University in Uganda. The in-person workshop, consisting of oral presentations, hands-on workshops and group discussions, lasted 4 days. Daily pre- and post-tests were administered to participants. Attendees were both research faculty and staff who support grants management functions at Makerere University and 10+ peer institutions across Uganda. The test consisted of true/false, multiple-choice and knowledge confidence questions. The participants’ evaluations were matched through codes and analysed for individual change. The analysis of change in knowledge for true/false and multiple-choice questions showed mixed results. Some categories showed significant change, whilst others showed no change or participants answered the post-test questions incorrectly. No change may be from participants already knowing the answers or from guesswork on evaluations. Heat maps for the self-reported knowledge change showed overall positive movement, with participants’ knowledge increasing and each category showing statistically significant self-reported knowledge gain and a P-value smaller than 0.001. Whilst the self-reported knowledge change showed statistical significance, analysis of the change in knowledge through multiple choice and true/false allows for examination of differences in workshop content for each topic area and overall evaluation structure. Findings suggest that workshop trainings can strengthen RA knowledge in areas of pre-award, post-award, compliance and financial management of grants. Improving RA skills at local universities in LMIC settings is important to ensure research projects receive appropriate administrative support. Evaluating the methods used to teach these skills and providing effective, sustainable models will help sustain global health research as the landscape continues to evolve.
The Rapid Evidence Support System Assessment (RESSA), developed by the Global Commission on Evidence to Address Societal Challenges, assesses evidence support systems that facilitate evidence-informed policy-making. As evidence-informed policy-making gains prominence globally, systematic assessment of these systems is increasingly important. However, process evaluation of system-level methodologies remains limited, particularly within complex policy environments. This study reports the first process evaluation of the RESSA methodology, conducted alongside an assessment of health policy-making in Ireland involving the Department of Health, the Health Research Board, Evidence Synthesis Ireland, Cochrane Ireland, and the Global Commission on Evidence to Address Societal Challenges. A qualitative process evaluation incorporating a checklist-based fidelity assessment with quantitative elements examined delivery fidelity, stakeholder acceptability, and stakeholder experiences. Three participant groups were included: key informants from the Department of Health and affiliated organizations, members of the project Oversight Group, and the RESSA lead. Delivery fidelity was assessed through qualitative exploration of the RESSA lead’s preparedness and quantitative assessment of protocol adherence to the published RESSA protocol specifications. Qualitative interviews were analysed using a hybrid inductive-deductive thematic approach framed by the pre-specified process evaluation domains, with the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability used to support interpretation of the acceptability findings. Reporting followed the COREQ checklist. The RESSA was delivered with high fidelity, with all eight protocol components implemented as specified (8/8, 100
Public participation in health technology assessment (HTA) is recognized as essential for legitimate, equitable and patient-centred health policy decision-making and constitutes a structural enabling condition for learning health systems. In Brazil, meaningful patient and public engagement in National Committee for Health Technology Incorporation (Conitec) public consultations remains constrained by low health literacy, technical jargon and scarce educational resources, limiting the participatory infrastructure that learning health systems require. We describe the Participa public health system-health technology assessment (SUS-ATS) project, a knowledge translation (KT) initiative combining a free virtual learning environment (VLE) with multichannel digital outreach to translate HTA knowledge for the general public. The project followed the knowledge-to-action framework across seven phases (2022–2025). Priority topics were identified through a survey with patient and civil society representatives, organized into thematic areas and adapted into educational video modules. Content was developed in plain language and validated through internal review by HTA researchers and a structured pilot evaluation (prespecified acceptability threshold of 70
Despite innovations driven by the COVID-19 response, research to improve surveillance and public health intelligence remains fragmented and poorly translated into practice. In 2024, the WHO Hub for Pandemic and Epidemic Intelligence conducted an exercise to identify research priorities aimed at coordinating robust evidence generation and methodologies for effectively responding to global health emergencies. Our aim was to analyse the extent to which the current research award landscape for epidemic-prone diseases aligns with the pandemic and epidemic intelligence research priorities. We used the Pandemic Preparedness: Analytical Capacity and Funding Tracking (Pandemic PACT) grant tracker, a database which monitors research funding for pandemic-prone diseases to identify research activities aligned with the pandemic and epidemic intelligence priorities. We extracted data from the Pandemic PACT database on 15 September 2025. We analysed the focus of awards, funding entities and funding amounts committed, and research locations. From January 2020 to September 2025, only 1.6
Brazil’s National Committee for Health Technology Incorporation (Conitec) has progressively expanded mechanisms for public and patient participation in health technology assessment (HTA) decision-making within the Unified Health System (SUS) since the 2010 National Policy for Health Technology Management. From 2012 until 2017, social participation was formally limited to public consultations, National Health Council representation and public hearings. The Department of Management and Incorporation of Health Technologies (DGITS)—Conitec's Executive Secretariat—initiated serial evidence-informed actions to expand social participation typologies and integrate qualitative evidence into HTA. Evidence on how participatory HTA is institutionalized in low- and middle-income country (LMIC) universal health coverage (UHC) settings remains limited. We conducted an implementation science type 2 hybrid effectiveness case study examining the co-production (January 2017–June 2020) and implementation (July/2020–December/2025) of evidence-informed actions to improve social participation in Conitec’s HTA processes. Data sources included participant observation notes, focus group transcripts (n = 11 facilitators, November 2017), written and visual materials from 2017 and 2019 stakeholder events, a qualitative evidence synthesis, policy documents, legislative instruments and implementation monitoring reports. We analysed data via a grounded-theory-inspired analysis triangulated with critical discourse analysis and an adapted theory of institutional change framework to systematically identify facilitators, barriers and outcomes to actions, simultaneously evaluating effectiveness and implementation feasibility. Key outcomes included: experienced qualitative researchers into DGITS (2020); patient testimonials in Conitec Committees’ meetings (2020); systematic qualitative analysis of 178 public consultation contributions(2021); initial qualitative evidence synthesis in HTA reports (2022); judiciary representations without voting rights (2022); and a rotating civil society organization (CSO) membership with voting rights (2025). Crucial facilitators included: legislative reform, institutional leadership, interinstitutional collaboration and investment in qualitative expertise. Persistent barriers comprised: digital inequities, HTA literacy gaps and risks of unaccountable influence in Conitec Committees’ deliberations. Our case study on this 2012–2025 policy implementation evolution underlines that an institutional culture shift towards inclusive, evidence-informed HTA within a LMIC/UHC setting requires clear legal frameworks and sustained investment in information strategies and qualitative analytical capacity as preconditions for transparency, accountability and ongoing co-production of context-specific impact indicators. The Brazilian experience highlights opportunities and tensions involved in embedding participatory practices within evidence-informed health policy systems.
One in three women globally experience physical or sexual violence, driving the urgent need for research to inform prevention and response efforts. The Global Shared Research Agenda (GSRA), developed by the Sexual Violence Research Initiative (SVRI) and the Equality Institute (EQI), sets out 41 priority research questions across four domains for addressing violence against women (VAW) and violence against children (VAC) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs): (1) understanding violence against women and girls in its multiple forms, (2) intervention research, (3) improving existing interventions and (4) methodological and measurement gaps. Yet, there are few practical tools for assessing whether research activity is meaningfully aligned with these priorities. This study pilots a desk-based mapping approach to examine how research presented at the SVRI Forum aligns with the GSRA. To address this gap, we piloted a desk-based mapping approach using all abstracts accepted at the 2019 and 2022 SVRI Forums; large, peer-reviewed, abstract-driven conferences focused on VAW and VAC. While not exhaustive of all research underway, SVRI Forum abstracts provide a structured, time-bound snapshot of current research trends, notably in LMICs. Grounded in an interpretivist approach, we used a qualitative content-mapping method informed by directed content analysis. Titles and abstracts were systematically matched to the 41 GSRA priority research questions to identify patterns of alignment, gaps and emerging themes. Most abstracts aligned with at least one GSRA priority question, with the greatest concentration in Domain 1 (understanding C in their multiple forms) and Domain 3 (improving existing interventions). Fewer abstracts addressed priority research questions related to lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer, intersex, asexual, and more (LGBTQIA+) populations, justice sector responses and long-term or intersectional measurement. Unmatched abstracts highlighted emerging themes, which include decolonization, practitioner well-being and political and funding dynamics, which fall outside the current GSRA scope and signal areas where priorities may be evolving. The process also underscored other, broader challenges with research priority question formats and the level of specificity required for research agendas. Findings suggest that the research presented at the SVRI Forums is broadly aligned with GSRA research priorities, while also highlighting areas where the agenda may require periodic updates to reflect emerging themes and methodological needs. The mapping approach offers an accessible tool for tracking the influence of research agendas such as the GSRA. Embedding similar monitoring mechanisms within research convenings may strengthen feedback loops between agenda-setting, funding decisions and practice, helping ensure that global research priorities remain responsive and relevant to stakeholders.
Local authorities play a pivotal role in addressing health inequalities and inequities by tackling their underlying social determinants – the fundamental building blocks of health. Research is therefore vital to ensure that decisions are evidence-based and tailored to population needs. Health Determinants Research Collaborations offer an opportunity to build research capacity and culture within local authorities and voluntary, community, faith and social enterprise (VCFSE) settings; however, an understanding of existing research practices and culture is required. Our study aimed to gather a baseline understanding of this within these settings in Somerset, United Kingdom. We utilized a multiple-methods qualitative study design. A total of 46 local authority employees took part in focus groups (n = 12) and in semistructured interviews (n = 1). An additional 18 participants from local VCFSE organizations took part in focus groups (n = 1), interviews (n = 8) and through completion of an online qualitative survey (n = 4). Using framework analysis, we identified four themes across the local authority and VCFSE datasets: (i) perceptions and value of research and evaluation; (ii) community participation in research and evaluation; (iii) utilization of data and evidence; and (iv) research and evaluation training needs. We found clear differences between the local authority and VCFSE sectors in how they define, use and resource research. Participants in both sectors described research as highly valued, but many equated it primarily with data collection and application, rather than with the delivery of rigorous academic research studies. Participants emphasised the need to integrate lived‑experience data more effectively into decision‑making. They suggested this integration is achievable through stronger community involvement structures and closer collaboration with the VCFSE sector. Although the local authority often draws on quantitative data to inform decision‑making, there was a recognized need for making greater use of qualitative data. Additionally, participants reported that challenges with data usability and data‑sharing processes and the lack of integrated datasets limit their ability to fully use available evidence. Finally, participants identified a broad range of research and evaluation training needs, particularly training that supports participatory approaches, mixed‑methods data collection and analysis, and evidence interpretation and application. Our findings demonstrate the complexities of building research capacity and culture within local authority and VCFSE settings and highlight significant opportunities for collaboration and influence on organizational and system decisions. The identification of levers and barriers to research within these settings offers novel insights for future funders, policy-makers, researchers and practitioners seeking to build research capabilities and culture.
Public involvement in health communication design is becoming increasingly important for creating messages that are inclusive, trusted, culturally resonant and equitable; however, little is known about how communities, including persons with disabilities can take active roles in judging and validating creative health education materials in low-resource settings. To explore how inclusive participatory judging and validation can support meaningful community involvement in developing arts-based eye health education materials in Tanzania and to examine participants’ experiences of contributing to these processes. A participatory action research (PAR) study using mixed methods to evaluate a nationwide competition that invited local artists to produce short animations and voice dramas to tell key eye health messages. A total of 14 community judges and 17 validation workshop participants assessed submissions using 10 criteria and later validated the top three entries for message inclusion, comprehension and effectiveness. The involvement of various local stakeholders enabled comprehensive assessment of the effectiveness of the artworks. Recommendations included improving accessibility using subtitles, sign language and clearer visuals. Participants suggested artwork should better reflect the realities of Tanzanian life to enhance their cultural relevance. The participatory judging and validation processes fostered a sense of inclusivity and ownership of the intervention in the community, with judges reporting feeling confident, valued and comfortable. Participatory judging and validation offered an inclusive and empowering approach to public involvement in health communication design. Beyond improving message quality, these processes fostered dialogue, shared decision-making and community ownership – demonstrating a transferable model for co-producing culturally grounded health education in low- and middle-income settings.
Knowledge translation (KT) is widely recognized as essential for evidence-informed policymaking, yet the research–policy gap persists. Co-production, namely collaborative knowledge production amongst researchers, policymakers and practitioners, has emerged as a promising approach to bridge this gap. However, existing literature has focussed largely on articulating co-production’s principles and anticipated benefits, whilst empirical investigations into why it fails in practice remain limited. We conducted a qualitative study using semi-structured in-depth interviews with 15 participants, including university-based researchers (n = 10) and government-funded institute researchers (n = 5) with direct experience in Korea’s coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) research response. Data were analysed using framework analysis following Spencer’s five-stage approach, informed by the Knowledge-to-Action model across four KT stages: knowledge production, exchange, utilization and conversion to knowledge production. Barriers were identified across all four KT stages, reflecting five interrelated structural mechanisms: epistemological incommensurability and incomplete boundary work; institutional fragmentation and misaligned incentives; the dominance of biomedical epistemology and the systematic exclusion of uncomfortable knowledge; bureaucratic expert dependency and path-dependent decision-making; and the absence of equity and power redistribution. These mechanisms formed a self-reinforcing cycle that systematically foreclosed the preconditions for co-production, not as isolated failures but as structurally produced outcomes. Barriers to co-production are structural rather than communicative in nature. Addressing them requires concrete institutional responses: restructuring research funding to mandate interdisciplinary participation, reforming advisory committee composition and deliberative processes to enable substantive non-biomedical input and establishing permanent knowledge brokering infrastructure rather than project-based arrangements. Co-production will remain aspirational without systemic interventions that realign institutional incentives, redistribute epistemic authority and create sustained platforms for researcher–policymaker–public collaboration.
The 3Rs principles (Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement) are globally recognized as a cornerstone of ethical animal research and an essential component of responsible biomedical research systems. Nonetheless, evidence on the awareness, reporting, and implementation in African research settings remain limited. This study therefore examined integration of 3Rs principles in African biomedical research by assessing existing evidence, key challenges, and pathways forward. It also explored awareness of early career researchers concerning ethical animal use and the 3Rs principles, with a particular focus on The Gambia. A two-pronged approach was used. A structured literature search of the PubMed Central and EBSCOhost databases (2001–2022) was conducted using predefined search terms and Boolean operators to identify peer-reviewed studies from African countries that explicitly reported the 3Rs principles. Also, a cross-sectional survey was administered to 80 purposively selected early career researchers and professionals in The Gambia to assess awareness, training, and institutional support for ethical use of animals in research. Data were analysed using Fisher’s exact test (p < 0.05) and the phi coefficient (Φ) to examine associations between selected demographic and training-related variables. Seven eligible studies explicitly mentioning the 3Rs were identified in six African countries. They mainly involved rodent models and focused on evaluating drug and nutrient efficacy, plant-based mitigation of toxicity, behavioural effects, antivenom evaluation, and environmental health risks. Nearly half involved transcontinental collaborations with researchers from Europe and the Americas. Survey findings showed important gaps in research ethics awareness, training, and institutional support. Most respondents (86
Research engagement is essential for advancing clinical care and strengthening academic capacity. However, sustained participation is often limited by institutional and workflow constraints. This study assessed perceived research barriers and related factors at Tehran University of Medical Sciences (TUMS) and developed and preliminarily evaluated a context-specific instrument. A sequential, exploratory, mixed-methods, single-centre study was conducted. Qualitative interviews and focus groups informed the development of a 45-item questionnaire covering 10 domains of research barriers and motives. The final instrument was administered via an online survey, with quota-based stratified sampling across academic roles. Internal consistency was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha. The scale showed acceptable internal consistency (α = 0.85), but domain-level reliability was mostly modest (α range: 0.36–0.76), and the a priori 10-domain structure was not confirmed (CFI = 0.69, TLI = 0.66, RMSEA = 0.062, SRMR = 0.17); exploratory analysis supported five to six broader dimensions. A total of 358 participants completed the survey (mean age 28.66 ± 7.38; 62.6
Ghana’s vaccine research ecosystem has evolved substantially alongside national and global immunisation efforts. However, the extent and distribution of research activity across the full vaccine development continuum have not been systematically synthesised. This review maps peer-reviewed publications and institutional reports across a nine-stage vaccine development framework from 1977 to 2025, comparing patterns between the pre-pandemic (2000–2020) and post-pandemic (2021–2025) periods. Before 2020, vaccine-related research in Ghana was concentrated predominantly in downstream domains, including disease surveillance, programme implementation, and Phase II–III clinical trials, with notable contributions to malaria and pneumococcal vaccine development. Following the COVID-19 pandemic, publication output increased more than fivefold and diversified into emerging areas such as genomic surveillance, regulatory science, behavioural research, and digital health systems, accompanied by stronger leadership from domestic institutions. Despite this expansion, engagement in upstream domains, including discovery science, preclinical development, Phase I clinical trials, and local vaccine manufacturing, remains limited, reflecting persistent structural and infrastructure constraints. Ghana has transitioned from a primarily implementation-focused setting to an increasingly active contributor to multidisciplinary vaccine evidence. Sustained investment in upstream research infrastructure, early-phase clinical trial capacity, sustainable financing mechanisms and behavioural intervention research will be essential to strengthen national vaccine sovereignty. The Ghanaian experience offers transferable lessons for other low- and middle-income countries seeking to build resilient and locally driven vaccine research ecosystems.
Cancer health disparities remain a challenge in the USA. To address these disparities, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) launched the Comprehensive Program to Advance Cancer Health (CPACH) in 2001, funding multi-institutional partnerships to strengthen research infrastructure, create training pathways and engage communities. While evaluations of CPACH partnerships often assess single components such as education or community engagement, less is known about their long-term, systemic impact. We conducted a qualitative study of the Meharry–Vanderbilt–TSU Cancer Partnership (MVTCP), the longest continuously funded CPACH site. In total, 43 interest holders, including faculty, students, and community advisory board members, participated in semi-structured interviews. Data were analysed using an iterative inductive–deductive approach, guided by the health systems science framework and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. The analysis revealed four impacts: increased funding/financial ROI, institutional collaboration, educational and career advancement, and community outreach, education and engagement. These impacts were supported by each institution’s capacities, personnel, and collaborative activities, which together generated multilevel change. The MVTCP demonstrates how multi-institutional partnerships can create synergistic impacts that extend beyond traditional research metrics, producing systemic change in institutions, careers, and communities. Policy and practice should prioritize sustained investment in collaborative models that integrate mentorship and community engagement as structural expectations to improve cancer health for all.
Building research capacity in health settings is essential for improving the relevance and application of health research. Rigorous evaluation of research capacity in health settings optimizes the development, implementation and improvement of such initiatives. Cooke’s 2005 framework was the earliest peer-reviewed framework to evaluate research capacity in health settings. While subsequent frameworks exist, it is not clear how they were developed and are used in practice. This review investigates the development, composition and utilization of peer-reviewed frameworks designed to evaluate research capacity in health settings. This two-phased methodological review was informed by the JBI scoping review methodology. Phase 1 involved a systematic search of seven databases on 1 May 2025 to identify peer-reviewed frameworks for evaluating research capacity. Phase 2 involved a forward citation search of included frameworks using Google Scholar, finalized on 18 September 2025, to identify the number and nature of citing studies. Data extraction and narrative synthesis were informed by the review aims. Phase 1 database searches yielded 2581 unique citations, of which 8 met the inclusion criteria. An additional framework was identified through citation searching, totalling 9 frameworks. The frameworks were developed via retrospective processes (reviews of literature and local data) or prospective methods (engagement workshops). Several were informed by earlier frameworks. Frameworks typically comprised an overarching structure, substructural components and a series of outcome indicators. Framework authors defined research capacity building in nuanced ways. Phase 2 forward citation searching of the nine frameworks revealed 881 citations. Of these, 37 citing articles met the inclusion criteria. Most (31/37) citing studies utilized Cooke’s 2005 framework. Frameworks were largely used to inform data collection and analysis, and most citing authors only used only some framework components. Limitations and strengths of the frameworks related to the development process and practical application were identified by framework and citing authors. This review facilitated new insights into the development, characteristics and utilization of frameworks to evaluate research capacity building in health settings. There are nine peer-reviewed, published frameworks, several informed by and expanding on earlier frameworks, which is essential for advancing the evaluation of research capacity in health settings.
Knowledge Translation (KT) research investigates methods to promote the uptake of research by practitioners, managers and policy-makers. Rooted in decades of interdisciplinary scholarship showing that evidence use is shaped by social sense‑making, institutions and politics, KT has moved beyond a linear “research to policy” model. Yet, persistent gaps between evidence and decision‑making, as well as uneven institutional capacity and fragmented KT research motivated the development of WHO’s Global Research Agenda: to prioritize rigorous, context‑sensitive KT research that addresses systemic, governance and practical barriers to sustained evidence‑informed policy-making (EIP). From October 2023 to March 2025, a structured five-step approach was undertaken, starting with synthesizing existing evidence on KT strategies and priorities, and complemented by primary data from a global survey. These inputs were used to develop a conceptual framework to organize KT research priority areas. This framework guided a global consultative process, which engaged diverse interest-holders through online consultations and Delphi surveys to jointly identify research gaps, opportunities and priority areas for inclusion in the final research agenda. The initial step of evidence synthesis identified 120 research areas. Through the global consultative process, these were refined to 19 priority research areas organized into three domains: (1) research on KT/EIP interventions, (2) research on barriers, facilitators and opportunities for KT/EIP and (3) research on KT/EIP methods, standards, measurement, theories and frameworks. Specific research areas include strategies to institutionalize KT, contextual factors influencing evidence uptake and exploring innovative technologies such as Artificial Intelligence. This study proposes a prioritized research agenda to guide future KT/EIP research and inform funding decisions. The agenda requires sustained engagement with interest-holders to maximize its impact. Future research should validate and refine the priorities, and ensure relevance, utility and effective implementation across diverse settings. The GRA is more than a technical checklist; it is a strategic roadmap for navigating the political and institutional dimensions of evidence use, enabling a shift beyond supply-side fixes toward a relational, politically aware KT/EIP approach. This shift is essential to embed evidence use in routine decision-making, strengthen system resilience and advance health equity through sustained institutional reform.
Research on evidence-informed decision-making has commonly focused on scientific evidence. However, this does not reflect the diversity of evidence used in real-world policy settings or give decision-makers a clear way to characterize and compare different evidence sources. This article describes the development of a spectrum approach to map the types of evidence used in health policy decisions and support more systematic and transparent judgements about their nature and applicability to different decisions. The approach was developed in four stages. First, we conducted a targeted literature search to identify key papers defining the concept of “evidence”. From these, we initially categorized evidence as binary according to its nature (either tacit or scientific) and its geographic scope (either global or local). Second, we tested these categorizations using findings from a global systematic review and an empirical study on vaccine policy-making in Kenya. This showed that binary categorizations were inadequate for capturing the range of evidence informing decisions and transparently presenting how evidence sources vary in their generation and contextual applicability. Third, iterative team deliberations about these limitations led us to develop a spectrum approach that maps evidence along two intersecting axes: tacit–scientific and local–global. Finally, stakeholders provided feedback on the clarity, relevance and applicability of this approach. The spectrum approach positions evidence along two axes: tacit to scientific (the extent to which evidence is independent of individual experience, documented and generated through systematic, transparent and reproducible processes) and global to local (in relation to the decision setting). Positioning evidence along axes rather than in binary categories allowed us to distinguish evidence that varies along these dimensions, visualize the forms of global and local evidence available and where gaps exist, and reflect more explicitly on the applicability of different evidence sources to specific decision contexts. Binary categorizations inadequately reflect variation in how evidence is generated and what evidence can be useful for decision-making. By mapping evidence across intersecting tacit–scientific and global–local continua, the spectrum approach offers a clear and inclusive framework that can support researchers and decision-makers in drawing more fully on the breadth of evidence available to inform health systems decisions.
Partnered rehabilitation research, where researchers and knowledge users (e.g. clinicians, administrators, clients) collaborate on research decision-making and activities, may enhance the use of evidence in clinical practice. Previous research identified gaps in formal evaluation and demonstrated effects of the partnering process in rehabilitation research. This study explored evaluation and effects of partnering on the research process and outcomes, and how partnering contributed to those effects. We conducted a qualitative descriptive study. Eligible participants were researchers and knowledge users involved in partnered rehabilitation research in Canada who could understand English. We developed an interview guide on the basis of a published framework of partnering in research and a model of partnering in community-based research. We completed semi-structured interviews with seven researchers and six knowledge users, most of whom identified as women and White. Participants had a range of rehabilitation research experience from a few years to decades. We used reflexive thematic analysis to interpret the findings. No participants formally evaluated their partnerships, citing challenges such as limited time, but believed it could be valuable. Accordingly, participants described many effects of partnering. We developed one main theme, “Partnering is an Interactive Process Shaping Research and those Involved,” along with three subthemes, “Partnering Influences the Research Process from Beginning to End,” “Learning through Partnering: Building Individual Research Knowledge, Skills and Capacity” and “The Effects of Partnering are Driven by Multiple Factors.” Participants described effects of partnering on the research process, outcomes and individuals; and factors that contributed to the effects. Despite the absence of evaluation, participants identified important impacts on research design, outcomes and individual learning that were influenced by an array of contributing factors. Persisting lack of evaluation of partnering in rehabilitation research may be restricting comprehensive understanding of the effects of partnering. Future research should prioritize approaches that balance rigor and relevance, and clarify who is best to lead evaluation activities.
