Table 1 Modified from [ 27 ], Greenhalgh and Wiering [ 35 ], and World Health Organization [ 21 ]

Push factors/supply side

• Donor/funding agencies’ support for knowledge coproduction

• Evidence too complex

• Availability of evidence

• Research-driven agendas related to publication in high-impact journals

• Credible knowledge brokers and opinion leaders

• High cost of producing

• Appropriate packaging in ‘evidence-based actionable messages’

• Packaging and distributing evidence too prohibitive

• Poor local access to relevant evidence

Pull factors/demand side

• Problem-based evidence, user-initiated policy questions and tacit knowledge

• Financial reasons for not acting on evidence

• Local knowledge champions

• Low demand for scientific evidence by policymakers

• Political support for implementation of particular research evidence

• ‘Paradigm differences’ between researchers, policymakers, and practitioners

• Strategic presence of social actors in local decision-making bodies (social participation)

Exchange factors/exchange agent’s role

• Education of and dialogues with users and media regarding high-impact stories on the use of knowledge

• Lack of interactive communication between producers and users of scientific evidence

• Innovative ways of knowledge sharing, esp. tacit knowledge and the community

• Lack of knowledge sharing, especially with policymakers