Table 1 Findings from descriptions of activities and outputs*

Building demand

No studies identified

NA

NA

NA

Prioritisation and co-production

Priority-setting exercises for activities and outputs

 • Four studies described KT platforms conducting priority-setting exercises involving policy-makers, stakeholders and researchers but the numbers were unclear and the formats were not described in detail [26, 33, 52, 59] – 1.5/3, 2/5, 1.5/3, 2.5/5, respectively

Yes (4)

Yes (1)

NA

Packaging, push, and support to implementation

Evidence briefs

 • Nine studies described KT platforms producing evidence briefs [24, 27, 33, 47, 52, 54, 55, 58, 59] – 1.5/5, 1.5/3, 2/5, 3/5, 1.5/3, 2.5/5, 1/5, 0/3, 2.5/5, respectively

  ◦ Across these nine studies, 24 unique KT platforms operating in 15 unique countries produced 63 evidence briefs (with double-counting possible across studies and some studies not providing numbers)

  ◦ Six of the nine studies described briefs that met EVIPNet (or SURE) criteria or were produced with support from EVIPNet (or SURE)

Yes (9)

No

Yes (15)

Other evidence outputs

 • Systematic reviews

  ◦ Four studies described KT platforms producing systematic reviews [24, 33, 38, 40], although the data from two studies include high-income countries and could not be disaggregated – 1.5/5, 2/5, 2/3, 2/3, respectively

  ◦ Considering only the data from the two studies focused on LMICs, only 3 KT platforms (each in a separate country) produced systematic reviews and then only infrequently [24, 33] – 1.5/5, 2/5, respectively

 • Traditional research outputs

  ◦ Seven studies described KT platforms producing traditional research outputs [24, 26, 27, 33, 38, 40, 54], although again the data from two studies include high-income countries and could not be disaggregated – 1.5/5, 1.5/3, 1.5/3, 2/5, 2/3, 2/3, 2.5/5, respectively

  ◦ These outputs include articles in peer-reviewed journals [24, 26, 27, 33, 54] – 1.5/5, 1.5/3, 1.5/3, 2/5, 2.5/5, respectively, research reports [24, 26, 27, 54] – 1.5/5, 1.5/3, 1.5/3, 2.5/5, respectively, policy-relevant research in various formats [24] – 1.5/5, and conference presentations [54] – 2.5/5

No (2 or 5)

Yes (2 and 2)

No (3 or NA)

Facilitating pull

Online clearinghouses

 • Four studies described KT platforms developing online clearinghouses [33, 40, 52, 55] – 2/5, 2/3, 1.5/3, 1/5, respectively, although the data from one study include high-income countries and could not be disaggregated [30] – 2/3

  ◦ Two studies described KT platforms developing clearinghouses, with the one in Uganda (REACH Policy Initiative Uganda) focused on health policy and systems research from that country (Uganda; 2012) [52] – 1.5/3 and the one in Cameroon (EVIPNet Cameroon) focused on health policy and systems research as well as evidence briefs and syntheses (Cameroon; 2009) [52, 55] – 1.5/3, 1/5, respectively

  ◦ One study described five KT platforms as being in the process of creating online clearinghouses [33] – 2/5

No (3)

Yes (1)

No (2)

Rapid evidence services

 • Four studies described KT platforms implementing rapid evidence services [33, 46, 52, 60] – 2/5, 1/5, 1.5/3, 1/3, respectively

  ◦ Across these four studies, four KT platforms (each in a separate country) were operating such services, including REACH Policy Initiative Uganda, EVIPNet Burkina Faso, EVIPNet Cameroon and ZAMFOHR

  ◦ REACH Policy Initiative Uganda received 65 evidence requests from 30 policy-makers and stakeholders in the first 28 months, returned 82% of responses on time [46] – 1/5 and it produced 73 briefs in the 2010–2012 period [52] – 1.5/3

  ◦ EVIPNet Burkina Faso delivered five rapid syntheses to four national-level policy-makers during its experimental phase (March–December 2011) [60] – 1/3

  ◦ Using three of the same studies, the three named KT platforms appear to have produced 99 rapid syntheses [46, 52, 60] – 1/5, 1.5/3, 1/3

Yes (4)

No

No (3 or 4)

Building capacity to use (and support the use of) research evidence

 • Three studies described at least five KT platforms based in four different countries that conducted capacity-building workshops for policy-makers and other evidence users in the areas of using research evidence, engaging in evidence-informed policy-making and undertaking KT activities [24, 33, 55] – 1.5/5, 2/5, 1/5, respectively

  ◦ Two additional studies [38, 40] – 2/3, 2/3, respectively, described numerous KT platforms that conducted capacity-building workshops, but these studies include high-income countries and could not be disaggregated

 • Three studies described 12 KT platforms based in 11 different countries that conducted internal capacity-building workshops for KT platform staff about various KT activities and outputs [33, 54, 58] – 2/5, 2.5/5, 0/3, respectively, with 10 focused on preparing evidence briefs [33], three focused on conducting systematic reviews and undertaking priority-setting exercises [33], and two on KT activities in general [54, 58]

 • Three studies described four KT platforms based in three different countries that conducted 37 capacity-building workshops for a broad range of groups – policy-makers, stakeholders and researchers – in the area of KT activities [52, 55, 56] – 1.5/3, 1/5, 2.5/3, respectively

No for use (3)

No

No for use (4)

Exchange

Deliberative dialogues

 • Eight studies described KT platforms convening deliberative dialogues [24, 27, 33, 47, 52, 55, 58, 59] – 1.5/5, 1.5/3, 2/5, 3/5, 1.5/3, 1/5, 0/3, 2.5/5, respectively

  ◦ Across these eight studies, 20 KT platforms in 15 different countries convened 45 deliberative dialogues (with double-counting possible across studies and some studies not providing numbers)

  ◦ Seven of the eight studies described dialogues that were informed by a pre-circulated evidence brief (while the other did not specify this)

  ◦ Six of the eight studies described dialogues that met EVIPNet (or SURE) criteria or were convened with support from EVIPNet (or SURE)

Yes (8)

Yes (1)

Yes (15)