Table 1.

Indicators of EIP institutionalization (building on [44])

Key dimensions/domains of change	Pre-institutionalization	Semi-institutionalization	(Re-)institutionalization
Stage of institutionalization and self-reinforcement	Vulnerable [37]	Anchored [37]	Resilient [37]
Legitimacy and taken-for-grantedness	Low [37]	Medium [37]	High [37]
Governance	• Preliminary institutional KT arrangement [23, 27] with ambiguous role [37]	• Official mandate for an institutional KT arrangement and home [23, 27]a with career opportunities staff [37]a • Varying conventions of the institutional KT arrangement may still trigger debate [37]	• Defined institutional KT arrangement role, steeped with expectations [37], integrated into government planning processesa
Standards and routinized processes	• No local standards, familiarization with international tools [71, 72] • Idiosyncratic activities [28, 37]	• Organizational (technical) standards [23]a • Consolidation [37] and organizational routines [23, 42]a	• EIP public policy regulationa • Routinized activities at the state level [42] scripted and internalized [37]
Partnership, collective action and support	• Collaboration with selected national champions and stakeholders [27, 73–75] • Strong support from international actors [37, 73, 76] • Success stories/mentoring from more advanced countries [23, 50, 71, 72, 74, 77, 78]	• Collaboration across the evidence ecosystem with an increasing number of key partners • Guidance from international actors and peer support with other countriesa	• Complex and ongoing multisectoral collaboration across the evidence ecosystema • Mentoring to other countriesa
Leadership and commitment	• Scattered (political) leadership and commitment [23, 73, 79, 80]	• Broadening of political support and commitmenta	Broad-based ecosystem/societal supporta
Resources	• Learning by doing [37] and training of individuals • Seed funding for EIP activities [23, 27, 73, 81]	• Institutional training [23, 79, 80]a and strong socialization [37] • Securing long-term diversified fundinga	• Sufficient skilled human resourcesa, and new professions and professional identities emerged [37]a • State budget for EIP and diversified sources of fundinga
Culture and values	• Relying on external symbols and vocabularies to reflect support [37], including international commitments enhancing legitimacy [71, 78, 82] • Trepidation over adoption requires high articulation [37]	• Institutional vocabularies manifest and values become clearer but can provoke opposition [37] • Technical discussions move from whether or not to do EIP to how to do EIP [37]	• Widely accepted local language and narratives that have become emulated [37]a • Norms and values cemented [37]a

^aRefers to the literature included in the domains framework in Additional file 4