Skip to main content
. 2018 May 24;16:44. doi: 10.1186/s12961-018-0316-y

Table 3.

Agency knowledge translation (KT) prioritisation, human resources and financial resources

Country Agencya KT prioritisationb,c KT staffc,d Annual budget for KT (CAD millions)c,e
Australia CCA n/a 1 2.9
NHFA ‘High’ 0 44
NHMRC 5 80 n/a
Canada AIHS 5 3 0.34 + embedded
CHSRF 5 Embedded Embedded
CIHR 4 15 30 + embedded
FRSQ 3 or 4 0 5
MSFHR 5 2 0.45
CCSRI 5 Embedded Embedded
NSHRF 5 1 n/a
SHRF 4 0 Embedded
SSHRC n/a 2 24.5–31.6
Netherlands ZonMW n/a 20 n/a
Denmark FSS n/a n/a Embedded
Norway RCN n/a n/a Embedded
United Kingdom AS 4 Embedded Embedded
CSO n/a 1 0.62
HF 3 Embedded 0.40
NHS HTA 4 n/a n/a
NIHR HS&DR 3.5 2.5 2.4
UK MRC 5 15–20 Embedded
WT 5 45 Not fixed
United States AHRQ 5 300 31
NIH-NCI 4 7 n/a
RWJF 5 35 340
VA 5 Embedded Embedded

aFor the full agency names, please refer to Table 1.

bFor KT prioritisation scores, a 5-point Likert scale was provided to the respondent. The scale was structured as: 5 – Very Important; 4 – Important; 3 – Neither important nor unimportant; 2 – Unimportant; 1 – Very unimportant

cNo responses were forced in any part of this research, and so, in several instances ‘n/a’ is recorded as the data point d‘Embedded’ was assigned to the ‘KT Staff’ column when the agency indicated KT is ‘a part’ of the duties of all, or a subset, of employees. Though none are assigned to it in particular

eThe ‘Annual Budget for KT’ column includes funds reported by the agency for KT specifically. This may include funds for agency staff or KT activities such as grants or awards. Agencies themselves reported these figures, and we interpret that they are best positioned to have decided what counts as KT-specific funds for them; we caution that this does imply different uses of funds were being reported by different agencies