Response to letter to the editor

The focus of our scoping review was to provide clarity through the categorization of knowledge translation (KT) theories, models, and frameworks (TMFs) to help navigate the sometimes confusing and challenging field [1]. In the scoping review, we used the approach categorization definitions provided...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inImplementation science : IS Vol. 15; no. 1; pp. 1 - 52
Main Authors Esmail, Rosmin, Hanson, Heather M, Holroyd-Leduc, Jayna, Brown, Sage, Strifler, Lisa, Straus, Sharon E, Niven, Daniel J, Clement, Fiona M
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published London BioMed Central Ltd 02.07.2020
BioMed Central
BMC
Subjects
Letter
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:The focus of our scoping review was to provide clarity through the categorization of knowledge translation (KT) theories, models, and frameworks (TMFs) to help navigate the sometimes confusing and challenging field [1]. In the scoping review, we used the approach categorization definitions provided by Nilsen to categorize each original KT TMF [2]; within this framework, RE-AIM was categorized and described as an evaluation framework; and thus, following the protocol outlined in our paper, we have not mischaracterized RE-AIM. Unfortunately, the 20-year review paper on RE-AIM was published in March 2019 after the scoping review search strategy and was not captured in the search [3].
Bibliography:SourceType-Other Sources-1
content type line 63
ObjectType-Correspondence-1
ObjectType-Commentary-2
ISSN:1748-5908
1748-5908
DOI:10.1186/s13012-020-01010-1