Table 1 Indicators of EIP institutionalization (building on [44])

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 processes^a

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 regulation^a

• Routinized activities at the state level [42] scripted and internalized [37]

Partnership, collective action and support

• Collaboration with selected national champions and stakeholders [27, 73,74,75]

• 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 countries^a

• Complex and ongoing multisectoral collaboration across the evidence ecosystem^a

• Mentoring to other countries^a

Leadership and commitment

• Scattered (political) leadership and commitment [23, 73, 79, 80]

• Broadening of political support and commitment^a

Broad-based ecosystem/societal support^a

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 funding^a

• Sufficient skilled human resources^a, and new professions and professional identities emerged [37]^a

• State budget for EIP and diversified sources of funding^a

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