↓ Skip to main content

Exploring the function and effectiveness of knowledge brokers as facilitators of knowledge translation in health-related settings: a systematic review and thematic analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
58 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
1 Google+ user
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
143 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
288 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Exploring the function and effectiveness of knowledge brokers as facilitators of knowledge translation in health-related settings: a systematic review and thematic analysis
Published in
Implementation Science, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13012-015-0351-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Catherine C. Bornbaum, Kathy Kornas, Leslea Peirson, Laura C. Rosella

Abstract

Knowledge brokers (KBs) work collaboratively with key stakeholders to facilitate the transfer and exchange of information in a given context. Currently, there is a perceived lack of evidence about the effectiveness of knowledge brokering and the factors that influence its success as a knowledge translation (KT) mechanism. Thus, the goal of this review was to systematically gather evidence regarding the nature of knowledge brokering in health-related settings and determine if KBs effectively contributed to KT in these settings. A systematic review was conducted using a search strategy designed by a health research librarian. Eight electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ERIC, Scopus, SocINDEX, and Health Business Elite) and relevant grey literature sources were searched using English language restrictions. Two reviewers independently screened the abstracts, reviewed full-text articles, extracted data, and performed quality assessments. Analysis included a confirmatory thematic approach. To be included, studies must have occurred in a health-related setting, reported on an actual application of knowledge brokering, and be available in English. In total, 7935 records were located. Following removal of duplicates, 6936 abstracts were screened and 240 full-text articles were reviewed. Ultimately, 29 articles, representing 22 unique studies, were included in the thematic analysis. Qualitative (n = 18), quantitative (n = 1), and mixed methods (n = 6) designs were represented in addition to grey literature sources (n = 4). Findings indicated that KBs performed a diverse range of tasks across multiple health-related settings; results supported the KB role as a 'knowledge manager', 'linkage agent', and 'capacity builder'. Our systematic review explored outcome data from a subset of studies (n = 8) for evidence of changes in knowledge, skills, and policies or practices related to knowledge brokering. Two studies met standards for acceptable methodological rigour; thus, findings were inconclusive regarding KB effectiveness. As knowledge managers, linkage agents, and capacity builders, KBs performed many and varied tasks to transfer and exchange information across health-related stakeholders, settings, and sectors. How effectively they fulfilled their role in facilitating KT processes is unclear; further rigourous research is required to answer this question and discern the potential impact of KBs on education, practice, and policy.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 58 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 288 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 281 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 52 18%
Student > Master 51 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 43 15%
Other 21 7%
Librarian 15 5%
Other 66 23%
Unknown 40 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 58 20%
Social Sciences 49 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 48 17%
Psychology 17 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 13 5%
Other 53 18%
Unknown 50 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 45. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 January 2021.
All research outputs
#666,809
of 20,168,911 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#110
of 1,657 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,225
of 393,952 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#14
of 268 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 20,168,911 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,657 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 393,952 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 268 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.