Table 1.

Terms and definitions

Co-creation	“Co-creation - collaborative knowledge generation by academics working alongside other stakeholder - reflects a “Mode 2″ relationship (knowledge production rather than knowledge translation) between universities and society. Co-creation is widely believed to increase research impact … Co-creation emerged independently in several fields, including business studies (“value co-creation”), design science (“experience-based co-design”), computer science (“technology co-design”), and community development (“participatory research”). Key success principles included (1) a systems perspective (assuming emergence, local adaptation, and nonlinearity); (2) the framing of research as a creative enterprise with human experience at its core; and (3) an emphasis on process (the framing of the program, the nature of relationships, and governance and facilitation arrangements, especially the style of leadership and how conflict is managed).” [5] “…refers to the active involvement of end-users in various stages of the production process … However, the main difference in the definitions between co-creation and co-production is that, in line with the work of Vargo and Lusch (2004, the cocreation literature puts more emphasis on co-creation as value” [6, 7]
Co-production	“…process through which inputs used to produce a good or service are contributed by individuals who are not ‘in’ the same organization” [8] “…co-production means delivering public services in an equal and reciprocal relationship between professionals, people using services, their families and their neighbours. Where activities are co-produced in this way, both services and neighbourhoods become far more effective agents of change.” [9]
Decision-makers	“Decision-makers in the health services field can range from frontline health providers to administrators to ministers of health.” [10] “An individual who makes decisions about, or influences, health policies or practices. Decision makers can be practitioners, educators, health care administrators, elected officials (Exception: Federal elected officials), and individuals within the media, health charities, patient user groups or the private sector. They can work at the local community, municipal, provincial or national level. Decision makers are those individuals who are likely to be able to make use of the results of the research.” [11]
Dissemination	“Dissemination goes well beyond simply making research available through the traditional vehicles of journal publication and academic conference presentations. It involves a process of extracting the main messages or key implications derived from research results and communicating them to targeted groups of decision-makers and other stakeholders in a way that encourages them to factor the research implications into their work. Face-to-face communication is encouraged whenever possible.” [10] “Dissemination involves identifying the appropriate audience for research findings, and tailoring the research message and the medium to the audience to ensure optimal awareness and understanding of the message.” [12]
Engaged Scholarship	“connecting the rich resources of the university to our most pressing social, civic and ethical problems.” [13] “…collaborative form of inquiry in which academics and practitioners leverage their different perspectives and competencies to coproduce knowledge about a complex problem or phenomenon that exists under conditions of uncertainty found in the world … Our argument for engaged scholarship is based on the concept of arbitrage-a strategy of exploiting differences in the kinds of knowledge that scholars and practitioners can contribute on a problem of interest.” [14]
Implementation Science	“…the scientific study of methods to promote the systematic uptake of research findings and other evidence-based practices into routine practice, and, hence, to improve the quality and effectiveness of health services and care.” [15]
Integrated Knowledge Translation	“…represents a different way of doing research and involves active collaboration between researchers and research users in all parts of the research process, including the shaping of the research questions, decisions about the methods involvement in the data collection and tools development, interpretation of the findings and dissemination and implementation of the research results” [16] “…a way of approaching research to increase the chances that the results will be applicable to the population under study. It is a paradigm shift that focuses on engagement with end users and the context in which they work. Essentially it is a collaborative way of conducting research that involves researchers and knowledge-users, sometimes from multiple communities (e.g. clinicians, managers, policy makers, patients) working together as partners in the research process.” [17] “…a model of collaborative research, where researchers work with knowledge users who identify a problem and have the authority to implement the research recommendations” [18] “In integrated KT, stakeholders or potential research knowledge users are engaged in the entire research process. By doing integrated KT, researchers and research users work together to shape the research process by collaborating to determine the research questions, deciding on the methodology, being involved in data collection and tools development, interpreting the findings, and helping disseminate the research results. This approach, also known by such terms as collaborative research, action-oriented research, and co-production of knowledge, should produce research findings that are more likely be relevant to and used by the end users.” [19]
Knowledge Exchange	“Knowledge exchange is collaborative problem-solving between researchers and decision-makers that happens through linkage and exchange. Effective knowledge exchange involves interaction between decision-makers and researchers and results in mutual learning through the process of planning, producing, disseminating, and applying existing or new research in decision-making.” [10] “The exchange of knowledge refers to the interaction between the knowledge user and the researcher, resulting in mutual learning.” [11] “…knowledge exchange refers to the interaction between knowledge-users (those who can inform their decision-making with research) and researchers (the knowledge producers) that result in mutual learning and knowledge use.” [12]
Knowledge Translation	“…a dynamic and iterative process that includes synthesis, dissemination, exchange and ethically sound application of knowledge to improve the health of Canadians, provide more effective health services and products and strengthen the health care system.” [19] “This process takes place within a complex system of interactions between researchers and knowledge users that may vary in intensity, complexity and level of engagement depending on the nature of the research and the findings as well as the needs of the particular knowledge user.” [20]
Knowledge to Action Process	“The Knowledge to Action Process conceptualizes the relationship between knowledge creation and action, with each concept comprised of ideal phases or categories. A knowledge creation “funnel” conveys the idea that knowledge needs to be increasingly distilled before it is ready for application. The action part of the process can be thought of as a cycle leading to implementation or application of knowledge. In contrast to the knowledge funnel, the action cycle represents the activities that may be needed for knowledge application.” [19] “… IKT is about an exchange of knowledge between relevant stakeholders that results in action. To achieve this, appropriate relationships must be cultivated. The first step in this process is to identify the relevant stakeholders and to establish a common understanding of KTA [Knowledge to Action]. It is our hope that this discussion and clarification of terms, along with our presentation of a conceptual map for the KTA process, will help knowledge producers and users understand the nature of the terrain so that they can find their way through the complex, iterative, and organic process of knowledge translation.” [21]
Knowledge Synthesis	“A synthesis is an evaluation or analysis of research evidence and expert opinion on a specific topic to aid in decision-making or help decision-makers in the development of policies. It can help place the results of a single study in context by providing the overall body of research evidence. There are many forms of synthesis, ranging from very formal systematic reviews, like those carried out by the Cochrane Collaboration, to informal literature reviews.” [10] “…means the contextualization and integration of research findings of individual research studies within the larger body of knowledge on the topic. A synthesis must be reproducible and transparent in its methods, using quantitative and/or qualitative methods. It could take the form of a systematic review, follow the methods developed by the Cochrane Collaboration, result from a consensus conference or expert panel or synthesize qualitative or quantitative results. Realist syntheses, narrative syntheses, meta-analyses, meta-syntheses and practice guidelines are all forms of synthesis.” [11]
Knowledge Use	“…process by which specific research-based knowledge (science) is implemented in practice.” [22]
Knowledge Users	“…an individual who is likely to be able to use the knowledge generated through research to make informed decisions about health policies, programs and/or practices. A knowledge-user’s level of engagement in the research process may vary in intensity and complexity depending on the nature of the research and his/her information needs. A knowledge-user can be, but is not limited to, a practitioner, policy-maker, educator, decision-maker, health care administrator, community leader, or an individual in a health charity, patient group, private sector organization, or media outlet.” [11] Individuals, groups, or organisations (including patients, healthcare providers, caregivers, communities, funders, organisations and policy-makers/decision-makers, managers, researchers, trainees, industry, media/journalists) that would be considered the beneficiaries of research or who are positioned to use the research to inform their decisions about policies, programmes, treatments, interventions and practices [17, 22]
Linkage and Exchange	“…the process of ongoing interaction, collaboration and exchange of ideas between the researcher and decision-maker communities. In a specific research collaboration, it involves working together before, during and after the research program.” [10]
Mode 2 Research	“[Research that is] socially distributed, application-oriented, trans-disciplinary and subject to multiple accountabilities” [23] “[Research that is] based on the needs of end users in the health care system and is arguably a more socially accountable form of knowledge production” [24]
Partners	Knowledge users, decision-makers, stakeholders, end-users, service-users, consumers, community members, community of interest, citizens, industry, groups, funders engaged in the research process
Participatory Research	“…systematic inquiry, with the collaboration of those affected by the issue being studied, for the purposes of education andtaking action or effecting social change” [25] “…an umbrella term for a school of approaches that share a core philosophy of inclusivity and of recognizing the value of engaging in the research process (rather than including only as subjects of the research) those who are intended to be the beneficiaries, users, and stakeholders of the research. Among the approaches included within this rubric are community-based participatory research, participatory rural appraisal, empowerment evaluation, participatory action research … and forms of action research embracing a participatory philosophy” [26]
Research Partnerships	“…individuals, groups or organizations engaged in collaborative research activity involving at least one researcher (e.g., individual affiliated with an academic institution), and any stakeholder actively engaged in any part of the research process (e.g., decision or policy maker, health care administrator or leader, community agency, charities, network, patients etc.) Such arrangements might or might not be formalized at the institutional level through a memorandum of understanding.” [27]
Stakeholders	Individuals, groups or organisations with shared interest in the research; may be in the geographic locality of the research setting or may be affected by the environmental effects of the research but may not necessarily use the generated knowledge [11]