Table 1 Classification schemes of KT interventions that were not recommended for use
From: Classification schemes for knowledge translation interventions: a practical resource for researchers
Article | Purpose of Classification Scheme | Area of Application | Citationsa | Quality Scoreb | Rationale for Not Recommending |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cohen 2000 [13] | To outline and clarify the content of preventative interventions | STD/HIV prevention | 27 | 3 | Low scores across all domains, modification of existing tool with minimal detail on development |
Dolan 2010 [14] | To shape policy maker behaviour | Policy | 254 | 4 | Poor rigour of development; does not seem useful for researchers |
Embry 2008 [15] | To provide a database repository of evidence-based units of behavioural influence | Parenting, school, & public health behaviour | 88 | 4 | Poor rigour of development and applicability, not intended as a development document, creates a care-focused sample |
Geller 1990 [16] | To outline a conceptual framework for traffic safety, especially use of seat belts | Injury prevention | 51 | 3 | Complex and outdated; poor rigour of development, applicability and KU involvement |
Goel 1996 [17] | To outline influences on retail pharmacies in developing countries | Pharmacy behaviours | 114 | 3 | Low scores in rigour of development, applicability, and editorial independence |
Hardeman 2000 [18] | To describe behaviour change programmes | Population/ public health | 178 | 2 | Low scores for scope and purpose, stakeholder/KU involvement, aspects of rigour, and applicability |
Perdue 2005 [19] | To describe different legal strategies for chronic disease prevention | Policy & public health | 17 | 3 | Low scores in areas of rigour of development and applicability |
Reisman 2005 [20] | To provide a taxonomy for transfer of technology | Technology transfer | 36 | 3 | Low scores in rigour of development, applicability, and editorial independence |
West 2006 [21] | To review tobacco control strategies | Behaviour change | 28 | 2 | Low scores for scope and purpose, stakeholder/KU involvement, aspects of rigour, and applicability |