Knowledge mobilization planning guides: a pragmatic synthesis and content analysis

Knowledge mobilization (KMb) aims to bridge the gap between research evidence and real-world application. While researchers, practitioners, and policymakers are increasingly expected to engage in KMb, many lack formal training and rely on publicly available guides. Despite their widespread use, little is known about the quality, evidence base, or development processes of these resources. This study examined the availability, content, and construction of online KMb guides relevant to health disciplines.

We conducted a pragmatic synthesis simulating how individuals typically search for KMb resources, using Google Plain to identify freely accessible, English-language guides offering concrete planning steps. Inclusion was based on relevance to health-related audiences, such as researchers, clinicians, managers, and policymakers. Two reviewers screened the first 50 results per search string, with calibration exercises to ensure consistency. Data were extracted using a piloted tool and analyzed through conventional content analysis to identify themes and guide characteristics.

The search was conducted in two time periods (pre-2019 and 2019-2025), yielding 52 eligible guides, of which 42 were available for full extraction. Most guides originated from Canada (69%) and used "knowledge translation" as the primary term (43%). Only a third cited evidence to support their guidance (33%) or effectiveness of strategies (24%), and none included a process for future updates. Most guides clearly outlined planning steps (91%) and were visually accessible (88%). Common steps included selecting a KMb method (93%), identifying the audience (86%), and evaluating the process (81%). Few addressed plan sustainability (19%).

This review found significant variability in the quality, transparency, and theoretical grounding of publicly available KMb guides. Many lacked clear development methods, cited evidence, or plans for updates, limiting their credibility and long-term usefulness. Only a minority referenced KMb theories or provided evidence to support their recommendations. We developed a meta-guide and reflective questions to support the creation and evaluation of more transparent and evidence-informed KMb resources.