Table 4.

Intended → Realised → Emergent (IRE) Framework classification of agency knowledge translation (KT) evaluation activities^a

	Intended strategy	Realised strategy			Emergent strategy
	Definition; KT objectives; KT implementation theory, etc.	KT evaluation/learning objectives	Evaluation methods for KT developed	Analysis and communication of findings	Uptake of evaluation evidence by funding agencyb,c
Australia (3)	2/3	1/3	1/3	1/3	0/3
Canada (9)	8/9	5/9	3/9	3/9	1/9
Europe (3)	3/3	0/3	0/3	0/3	0/3
United Kingdom (7)	6/7	5/7	2/7	2/7	0/7
United States of America (4)	4/4	1/4	1/ 4	0/4	0/4
Total (26)	23	12	7	6	1

^aThis table includes only those activities focused specifically on KT and omits any which were considered ‘embedded’ in broader research quality assessments or operational reviews. This decision was based on agency representatives being categorically unable to elaborate what and how KT aspects and activities were ‘embedded’ in any broader evaluation when probed during interviews. This was corroborated in our review of the evaluation report or other related documentation. ^bAIHS is the only agency to have completed a health research funding evaluation which they could demonstrate evidence to show it has been used to inform agency practice. ^cAfter the completion of data collection, but before publication of this manuscript, CIHR completed and delivered its KT evaluation to its senior management committee; it is not included in the classification to uphold data consistency