Evaluation of CIHR's Knowledge Translation Funding Program – Long descriptions

Figure 2 – Logic model for the KT funding program

Activities and outputs

Activities Knowledge Synthesis Partnerships for Health Systems Improvement Knowledge to action KT Supplement / Dissemination Event KT Science
Outputs Knowledge Synthesis Grants PHSI grants awarded K2A grants awarded DE and KTS grants awarded KT Science Research grants awarded

Outcomes

KT activities and outputs have immediate, intermediate and long-term outcomes:

« Back to figure 2

Figure 3: Reported contribution to CIHR mandate: KT funding opportunities

Synthesis K2A PHSI KT Science KTS DE
Creating new health knowledge 43% 63% 41% 31% 56% 46%
Translating the knowledge from research into real world applications 51% 32% 59% 56% 22% 42%
Improving health for Canadians 72% 74% 82% 94% 67% 78%
Creating more effective health services and/or products 67% 58% 65% 63% 72% 65%
Strengthening the Canadian health care system 78% 63% 76% 94% 72% 70%

« Back to figure 3

Figure 4: Reported contribution to CIHR mandate: Synthesis, iKT, end of grant KT, KT science and OOGP

Synthesis iKT KT science End of grant OOGP
Creating new health knowledge 43% 50% 31% 48% 96%
Translating the knowledge from research into real world applications 51% 44% 56% 39% 73%
Improving health for Canadians 72% 78% 94% 78% 55%
Creating more effective health services and/or products 67% 61% 63% 66% 43%
Strengthening the Canadian health care system 78% 69% 94% 70% 39%

« Back to figure 4

Figure 5: Intended audience vs. influenced audience; KTS and DE

Intended KT Supplement Influenced KT Supplement Intended Dissemination Event Influenced Dissemination Event
Health System/ care practitioners 90 84.6 87 74.8
Patients/consumers of health information 58 75 44 64.5
Health system/care managers 72 76.9 65 74.2
Health system/professional organizations 54 58.3 48 63.5
Federal/provincial organizations 63 76.9 59 60.9
Community/municipal organizations 66 61.5 45 55.4
Consumer groups/health charitable organizations 49 50 39 51.9
Industry 14 5.6 34 59
Media 42 58.3 26 47.3
Other researchers/academics 77 87.5 89 92.2

« Back to figure 5

Figure 6: Synthesis and K2A researchers who reported partner financial and/or in kind contributions

Synthesis K2A
Yes 38% 79%
No 62% 21%

« Back to figure 6

Figure 9: Internal challenges

The time it takes to do iKT research projects
Synthesis K2A PHSI
Don't know/ not applicable 2% 3% 2%
Not at all 7% 11% 13%
Too small/ some extent 35% 29% 49%
To a moderate/ great extent 56% 57% 36%

« Back to figure 9

Figure 10: External challenges

The pressure to publish traditional research knowledge products
Synthesis K2A PHSI
Don't know/ not applicable 4% 4% 2%
Not at all 32% 11% 36%
Too small/ some extent 28% 50% 42%
To a moderate/ great extent 36% 35% 20%
The lack of academic recognition for developing and deploying KT knowledge
Synthesis K2A PHSI
Don't know/ not applicable 3% 8% 6%
Not at all 37% 6% 26%
Too small/ some extent 33% 50% 47%
To a moderate/ great extent 27% 36% 21%

« Back to figure 10

Figure 11: CIHR strategic challenges

The amount of funding available in the grant
Synthesis K2A PHSI
Don't know/ not applicable 2% 1% 3%
Not at all 29% 21% 36%
Too small/ some extent 45% 28% 40%
To a moderate/ great extent 24% 50% 21%
The length of time of the grant
Synthesis K2A PHSI
Don't know/ not applicable 2% 4% 5%
Not at all 22% 14% 26%
Too small/ some extent 36% 32% 41%
To a moderate/ great extent 40% 50% 28%

« Back to figure 11

Figure 14: Impact of a reduction in requested funding: iKT funding opportunities

The project took longer I had to reduce the scope of the project I had to leverage funds from elsewhere Other It had no effect
Percentage 55 40 40 15 10

« Back to figure 14

Figure 15: External challenges

Fitting the KU into the application requirements (CV compliance, time, involvement, role expectations, RFA definitions)
Synthesis K2A PHSI
Don't know/ not applicable 3% 3% 0%
Not at all 13% 11% 19%
Too small/ some extent 46% 57% 47%
To a moderate/ great extent 38% 29% 34%

« Back to figure 15

Figure 17: Change in KT inclusion in mandate over time (2008 vs. 2011)

Australia (n=3) Canada (n=9) Netherlands (n=1) Scandinavia (n=2) United Kingdom (n=7) United States (n=4)
2008 0.33 0.66 0 0 0.71 0.5
2011 0.33 0.78 1 0.5 0.86 1

« Back to figure 17

Date modified: