Table 2 The final list of EIPM barriers in knowledge production (PUSH), presented separately for the systematic review and policy dialogue

A: Supportive processes

Review

Policy dialogue

 Interactions between medical and non-medical universities have not been defined

*

 Organizational resources for information technology development are inadequate

*

 Academic members are selected regardless of the skills required

*

 Lack of mutual trust between researchers

*

 Researchers are dispersed, and there is no coordination among them

*

 There are no clearly defined task descriptions in knowledge translation (KT) units

*

 The superficiality of policies and processes of teamwork thinking and interdisciplinary research

*

 Researchers are not employed based on research needs

*

B: Incentive systems

Review

Policy dialogue

 B1: Organizational values and goals

  Absence of a sustainable development approach in research

*

 B2: Individual capacities and capabilities

  Researchers' lack of awareness on the necessity of KT

*

  Researchers' inadequate skills in research and KT methods

*

  Researchers' lack of familiarity with target audiences and the methodology of policy-making studies

*

 B3: Performance evaluation and reward programmes

  Considering quantitative criteria such as publication instead of giving importance to research quality and its applicability

*

  Neglecting KT activities in the performance evaluation

*

  Researchers' inadequate incentives to produce applied knowledge and the lack of the need to transfer their results

*

  Researchers' preference to choose easy instead of difficult research

*

  Lack of incentives to interact with society

*

C: Characteristics of evidence

Source

 C1: Research evidence

Review

Policy dialogue

  Weak strategic purchasing of research: research is not consistent with the users' needs and priorities

*

  Stakeholders do not participate in conducting the research

*

Lack of trust of local evidence produced

*

  Absence of appropriate laws for protecting individuals' intellectual property rights

*

  The research results published are not up to date

*

  Local evidence is not used

*

  The persistence of journals' editor-in-chief councils on the publication of specific topics

*

  Poor quality of evidence

*

  High volume of data or conflicting results, design, and differing values

*

  Lengthy and conflicting review processes

*

 C2: Routine health system data (registration, collection, analysis, dissemination)

  Those registering the routine data are unaware of the data's significance

*

  The lack of timely registration of patient data due to lack of coordination among different units and the unreliability of the data

*

  Incomplete implementation of health information systems

*

  Delay in or lack of decision-maker access to routine data, particularly data related to cost of services

*