Register      Login
Public Health Research and Practice Public Health Research and Practice Society
The peer-reviewed journal of the Sax Institute
RESEARCH ARTICLE (Open Access)

Narrative review of frameworks for translating research evidence into policy and practice

Andrew Milat A B * and Ben Li C
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations

A NSW Ministry of Health, Sydney, Australia

B Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, NSW, Australia

C McMaster University, Ontario, Canada

* Correspondence to: amila@doh.health.nsw.gov.au

Public Health Research and Practice 27, e2711704 https://doi.org/10.17061/phrp2711704
Published: 15 February 2017

Abstract

Background: A significant challenge in research translation is that interested parties interpret and apply the associated terms and conceptual frameworks in different ways. The purpose of this review was to: a) examine different research translation frameworks; b) examine the similarities and differences between the frameworks; and c) identify key strengths and weaknesses of the models when they are applied in practice. Methods: The review involved a keyword search of PubMed. The search string was (translational research OR knowledge translation OR evidence to practice) AND (framework OR model OR theory) AND (public health OR health promotion OR medicine). Included studies were published in English between January 1990 and December 2014, and described frameworks, models or theories associated with research translation. Results: The final review included 98 papers, and 41 different frameworks and models were identified. The most frequently applied knowledge translation framework in the literature was RE-AIM, followed by the knowledge translation continuum or ‘T’ models, the Knowledge to Action framework, the PARiHS framework, evidence based public health models, and the stages of research and evaluation model. Conclusion: The models identified in this review stem from different fields, including implementation science, basic and medical sciences, health services research and public health, and propose different but related pathways to closing the research–practice gap.

2017 © Milat and Li. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International Licence, which allows others to redistribute, adapt and share this work non-commercially provided they attribute the work and any adapted version of it is distributed under the same Creative Commons licence terms.