Translating research into action: an international study of the role of research funders

Table 3 Agency knowledge translation (KT) prioritisation, human resources and financial resources

Country	Agency^a	KT prioritisation^b,c	KT staff^c,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

ISSN: 1478-4505