what to include in research context

• Privacy Policy

Home » Context of the Study – Writing Guide and Examples

Context of the Study – Writing Guide and Examples

Table of Contents

Context of the Study

The context of a study refers to the set of circumstances or background factors that provide a framework for understanding the research question , the methods used, and the findings . It includes the social, cultural, economic, political, and historical factors that shape the study’s purpose and significance, as well as the specific setting in which the research is conducted. The context of a study is important because it helps to clarify the meaning and relevance of the research, and can provide insight into the ways in which the findings might be applied in practice.

Structure of Context of the Study

The structure of the context of the study generally includes several key components that provide the necessary background and framework for the research being conducted. These components typically include:

• Introduction : This section provides an overview of the research problem , the purpose of the study, and the research questions or hypotheses being tested.
• Background and Significance : This section discusses the historical, theoretical, and practical background of the research problem, highlighting why the study is important and relevant to the field.
• Literature Review: This section provides a comprehensive review of the existing literature related to the research problem, highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of previous studies and identifying gaps in the literature.
• Theoretical Framework : This section outlines the theoretical perspective or perspectives that will guide the research and explains how they relate to the research questions or hypotheses.
• Research Design and Methods: This section provides a detailed description of the research design and methods, including the research approach, sampling strategy, data collection methods, and data analysis procedures.
• Ethical Considerations : This section discusses the ethical considerations involved in conducting the research, including the protection of human subjects, informed consent, confidentiality, and potential conflicts of interest.
• Limitations and Delimitations: This section discusses the potential limitations of the study, including any constraints on the research design or methods, as well as the delimitations, or boundaries, of the study.
• Contribution to the Field: This section explains how the study will contribute to the field, highlighting the potential implications and applications of the research findings.

How to Write Context of the study

Here are some steps to write the context of the study:

• Identify the research problem: Start by clearly defining the research problem or question you are investigating. This should be a concise statement that highlights the gap in knowledge or understanding that your research seeks to address.
• Provide background information : Once you have identified the research problem, provide some background information that will help the reader understand the context of the study. This might include a brief history of the topic, relevant statistics or data, or previous research on the subject.
• Explain the significance: Next, explain why the research is significant. This could be because it addresses an important problem or because it contributes to a theoretical or practical understanding of the topic.
• Outline the research objectives : State the specific objectives of the study. This helps to focus the research and provides a clear direction for the study.
• Identify the research approach: Finally, identify the research approach or methodology you will be using. This might include a description of the data collection methods, sample size, or data analysis techniques.

Example of Context of the Study

Here is an example of a context of a study:

Title of the Study: “The Effectiveness of Online Learning in Higher Education”

The COVID-19 pandemic has forced many educational institutions to adopt online learning as an alternative to traditional in-person teaching. This study is conducted in the context of the ongoing shift towards online learning in higher education. The study aims to investigate the effectiveness of online learning in terms of student learning outcomes and satisfaction compared to traditional in-person teaching. The study also explores the challenges and opportunities of online learning in higher education, especially in the current pandemic situation. This research is conducted in the United States and involves a sample of undergraduate students enrolled in various universities offering online and in-person courses. The study findings are expected to contribute to the ongoing discussion on the future of higher education and the role of online learning in the post-pandemic era.

Context of the Study in Thesis

The context of the study in a thesis refers to the background, circumstances, and conditions that surround the research problem or topic being investigated. It provides an overview of the broader context within which the study is situated, including the historical, social, economic, and cultural factors that may have influenced the research question or topic.

Context of the Study Example in Thesis

Here is an example of the context of a study in a thesis:

Context of the Study:

The rapid growth of the internet and the increasing popularity of social media have revolutionized the way people communicate, connect, and share information. With the widespread use of social media, there has been a rise in cyberbullying, which is a form of aggression that occurs online. Cyberbullying can have severe consequences for victims, such as depression, anxiety, and even suicide. Thus, there is a need for research that explores the factors that contribute to cyberbullying and the strategies that can be used to prevent or reduce it.

This study aims to investigate the relationship between social media use and cyberbullying among adolescents in the United States. Specifically, the study will examine the following research questions:

• What is the prevalence of cyberbullying among adolescents who use social media?
• What are the factors that contribute to cyberbullying among adolescents who use social media?
• What are the strategies that can be used to prevent or reduce cyberbullying among adolescents who use social media?

The study is significant because it will provide valuable insights into the relationship between social media use and cyberbullying, which can be used to inform policies and programs aimed at preventing or reducing cyberbullying among adolescents. The study will use a mixed-methods approach, including both quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis, to provide a comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon of cyberbullying among adolescents who use social media.

Context of the Study in Research Paper

The context of the study in a research paper refers to the background information that provides a framework for understanding the research problem and its significance. It includes a description of the setting, the research question, the objectives of the study, and the scope of the research.

Context of the Study Example in Research Paper

An example of the context of the study in a research paper might be:

The global pandemic caused by COVID-19 has had a significant impact on the mental health of individuals worldwide. As a result, there has been a growing interest in identifying effective interventions to mitigate the negative effects of the pandemic on mental health. In this study, we aim to explore the impact of a mindfulness-based intervention on the mental health of individuals who have experienced increased stress and anxiety due to the pandemic.

Context of the Study In Research Proposal

The context of a study in a research proposal provides the background and rationale for the proposed research, highlighting the gap or problem that the study aims to address. It also explains why the research is important and relevant to the field of study.

Context of the Study Example In Research Proposal

Here is an example of a context section in a research proposal:

The rise of social media has revolutionized the way people communicate and share information online. As a result, businesses have increasingly turned to social media platforms to promote their products and services, build brand awareness, and engage with customers. However, there is limited research on the effectiveness of social media marketing strategies and the factors that contribute to their success. This research aims to fill this gap by exploring the impact of social media marketing on consumer behavior and identifying the key factors that influence its effectiveness.

Purpose of Context of the Study

The purpose of providing context for a study is to help readers understand the background, scope, and significance of the research being conducted. By contextualizing the study, researchers can provide a clear and concise explanation of the research problem, the research question or hypothesis, and the research design and methodology.

The context of the study includes information about the historical, social, cultural, economic, and political factors that may have influenced the research topic or problem. This information can help readers understand why the research is important, what gaps in knowledge the study seeks to address, and what impact the research may have in the field or in society.

Advantages of Context of the Study

Some advantages of considering the context of a study include:

• Increased validity: Considering the context can help ensure that the study is relevant to the population being studied and that the findings are more representative of the real world. This can increase the validity of the study and help ensure that its conclusions are accurate.
• Enhanced understanding: By examining the context of the study, researchers can gain a deeper understanding of the factors that influence the phenomenon under investigation. This can lead to more nuanced findings and a richer understanding of the topic.
• Improved generalizability: Contextualizing the study can help ensure that the findings are applicable to other settings and populations beyond the specific sample studied. This can improve the generalizability of the study and increase its impact.
• Better interpretation of results: Understanding the context of the study can help researchers interpret their results more accurately and avoid drawing incorrect conclusions. This can help ensure that the study contributes to the body of knowledge in the field and has practical applications.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

How to Cite Research Paper – All Formats and...

Data Collection – Methods Types and Examples

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Research Paper Format – Types, Examples and...

Research Process – Steps, Examples and Tips

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

• 4. The Introduction
• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Independent and Dependent Variables
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Reading Research Effectively
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Academic Writing Style
• Applying Critical Thinking
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• Research Process Video Series
• Executive Summary
• The C.A.R.S. Model
• Background Information
• The Research Problem/Question
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tiertiary Sources
• Scholarly vs. Popular Publications
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Insiderness
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Limitations of the Study
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Writing Concisely
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Generative AI and Writing
• USC Libraries Tutorials and Other Guides
• Bibliography

The introduction leads the reader from a general subject area to a particular topic of inquiry. It establishes the scope, context, and significance of the research being conducted by summarizing current understanding and background information about the topic, stating the purpose of the work in the form of the research problem supported by a hypothesis or a set of questions, explaining briefly the methodological approach used to examine the research problem, highlighting the potential outcomes your study can reveal, and outlining the remaining structure and organization of the paper.

Key Elements of the Research Proposal. Prepared under the direction of the Superintendent and by the 2010 Curriculum Design and Writing Team. Baltimore County Public Schools.

Importance of a Good Introduction

Think of the introduction as a mental road map that must answer for the reader these four questions:

• What was I studying?
• Why was this topic important to investigate?
• What did we know about this topic before I did this study?
• How will this study advance new knowledge or new ways of understanding?

According to Reyes, there are three overarching goals of a good introduction: 1) ensure that you summarize prior studies about the topic in a manner that lays a foundation for understanding the research problem; 2) explain how your study specifically addresses gaps in the literature, insufficient consideration of the topic, or other deficiency in the literature; and, 3) note the broader theoretical, empirical, and/or policy contributions and implications of your research.

A well-written introduction is important because, quite simply, you never get a second chance to make a good first impression. The opening paragraphs of your paper will provide your readers with their initial impressions about the logic of your argument, your writing style, the overall quality of your research, and, ultimately, the validity of your findings and conclusions. A vague, disorganized, or error-filled introduction will create a negative impression, whereas, a concise, engaging, and well-written introduction will lead your readers to think highly of your analytical skills, your writing style, and your research approach. All introductions should conclude with a brief paragraph that describes the organization of the rest of the paper.

Hirano, Eliana. “Research Article Introductions in English for Specific Purposes: A Comparison between Brazilian, Portuguese, and English.” English for Specific Purposes 28 (October 2009): 240-250; Samraj, B. “Introductions in Research Articles: Variations Across Disciplines.” English for Specific Purposes 21 (2002): 1–17; Introductions. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; “Writing Introductions.” In Good Essay Writing: A Social Sciences Guide. Peter Redman. 4th edition. (London: Sage, 2011), pp. 63-70; Reyes, Victoria. Demystifying the Journal Article. Inside Higher Education.

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Structure and Approach

The introduction is the broad beginning of the paper that answers three important questions for the reader:

• What is this?
• Why should I read it?
• What do you want me to think about / consider doing / react to?

Think of the structure of the introduction as an inverted triangle of information that lays a foundation for understanding the research problem. Organize the information so as to present the more general aspects of the topic early in the introduction, then narrow your analysis to more specific topical information that provides context, finally arriving at your research problem and the rationale for studying it [often written as a series of key questions to be addressed or framed as a hypothesis or set of assumptions to be tested] and, whenever possible, a description of the potential outcomes your study can reveal.

These are general phases associated with writing an introduction: 1.  Establish an area to research by:

• Highlighting the importance of the topic, and/or
• Making general statements about the topic, and/or
• Presenting an overview on current research on the subject.

2.  Identify a research niche by:

• Opposing an existing assumption, and/or
• Revealing a gap in existing research, and/or
• Formulating a research question or problem, and/or
• Continuing a disciplinary tradition.

3.  Place your research within the research niche by:

• Stating the intent of your study,
• Outlining the key characteristics of your study,
• Describing important results, and
• Giving a brief overview of the structure of the paper.

NOTE:   It is often useful to review the introduction late in the writing process. This is appropriate because outcomes are unknown until you've completed the study. After you complete writing the body of the paper, go back and review introductory descriptions of the structure of the paper, the method of data gathering, the reporting and analysis of results, and the conclusion. Reviewing and, if necessary, rewriting the introduction ensures that it correctly matches the overall structure of your final paper.

II.  Delimitations of the Study

Delimitations refer to those characteristics that limit the scope and define the conceptual boundaries of your research . This is determined by the conscious exclusionary and inclusionary decisions you make about how to investigate the research problem. In other words, not only should you tell the reader what it is you are studying and why, but you must also acknowledge why you rejected alternative approaches that could have been used to examine the topic.

Obviously, the first limiting step was the choice of research problem itself. However, implicit are other, related problems that could have been chosen but were rejected. These should be noted in the conclusion of your introduction. For example, a delimitating statement could read, "Although many factors can be understood to impact the likelihood young people will vote, this study will focus on socioeconomic factors related to the need to work full-time while in school." The point is not to document every possible delimiting factor, but to highlight why previously researched issues related to the topic were not addressed.

Examples of delimitating choices would be:

• The key aims and objectives of your study,
• The research questions that you address,
• The variables of interest [i.e., the various factors and features of the phenomenon being studied],
• The method(s) of investigation,
• The time period your study covers, and
• Any relevant alternative theoretical frameworks that could have been adopted.

Review each of these decisions. Not only do you clearly establish what you intend to accomplish in your research, but you should also include a declaration of what the study does not intend to cover. In the latter case, your exclusionary decisions should be based upon criteria understood as, "not interesting"; "not directly relevant"; “too problematic because..."; "not feasible," and the like. Make this reasoning explicit!

NOTE:   Delimitations refer to the initial choices made about the broader, overall design of your study and should not be confused with documenting the limitations of your study discovered after the research has been completed.

ANOTHER NOTE : Do not view delimitating statements as admitting to an inherent failing or shortcoming in your research. They are an accepted element of academic writing intended to keep the reader focused on the research problem by explicitly defining the conceptual boundaries and scope of your study. It addresses any critical questions in the reader's mind of, "Why the hell didn't the author examine this?"

III.  The Narrative Flow

Issues to keep in mind that will help the narrative flow in your introduction :

• Your introduction should clearly identify the subject area of interest . A simple strategy to follow is to use key words from your title in the first few sentences of the introduction. This will help focus the introduction on the topic at the appropriate level and ensures that you get to the subject matter quickly without losing focus, or discussing information that is too general.
• Establish context by providing a brief and balanced review of the pertinent published literature that is available on the subject. The key is to summarize for the reader what is known about the specific research problem before you did your analysis. This part of your introduction should not represent a comprehensive literature review--that comes next. It consists of a general review of the important, foundational research literature [with citations] that establishes a foundation for understanding key elements of the research problem. See the drop-down menu under this tab for " Background Information " regarding types of contexts.
• Clearly state the hypothesis that you investigated . When you are first learning to write in this format it is okay, and actually preferable, to use a past statement like, "The purpose of this study was to...." or "We investigated three possible mechanisms to explain the...."
• Why did you choose this kind of research study or design? Provide a clear statement of the rationale for your approach to the problem studied. This will usually follow your statement of purpose in the last paragraph of the introduction.

IV.  Engaging the Reader

A research problem in the social sciences can come across as dry and uninteresting to anyone unfamiliar with the topic . Therefore, one of the goals of your introduction is to make readers want to read your paper. Here are several strategies you can use to grab the reader's attention:

• Open with a compelling story . Almost all research problems in the social sciences, no matter how obscure or esoteric , are really about the lives of people. Telling a story that humanizes an issue can help illuminate the significance of the problem and help the reader empathize with those affected by the condition being studied.
• Include a strong quotation or a vivid, perhaps unexpected, anecdote . During your review of the literature, make note of any quotes or anecdotes that grab your attention because they can used in your introduction to highlight the research problem in a captivating way.
• Pose a provocative or thought-provoking question . Your research problem should be framed by a set of questions to be addressed or hypotheses to be tested. However, a provocative question can be presented in the beginning of your introduction that challenges an existing assumption or compels the reader to consider an alternative viewpoint that helps establish the significance of your study. 
• Describe a puzzling scenario or incongruity . This involves highlighting an interesting quandary concerning the research problem or describing contradictory findings from prior studies about a topic. Posing what is essentially an unresolved intellectual riddle about the problem can engage the reader's interest in the study.
• Cite a stirring example or case study that illustrates why the research problem is important . Draw upon the findings of others to demonstrate the significance of the problem and to describe how your study builds upon or offers alternatives ways of investigating this prior research.

NOTE:   It is important that you choose only one of the suggested strategies for engaging your readers. This avoids giving an impression that your paper is more flash than substance and does not distract from the substance of your study.

Freedman, Leora  and Jerry Plotnick. Introductions and Conclusions. University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Introduction. The Structure, Format, Content, and Style of a Journal-Style Scientific Paper. Department of Biology. Bates College; Introductions. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Introductions. The Writer’s Handbook. Writing Center. University of Wisconsin, Madison; Introductions, Body Paragraphs, and Conclusions for an Argument Paper. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; “Writing Introductions.” In Good Essay Writing: A Social Sciences Guide . Peter Redman. 4th edition. (London: Sage, 2011), pp. 63-70; Resources for Writers: Introduction Strategies. Program in Writing and Humanistic Studies. Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Sharpling, Gerald. Writing an Introduction. Centre for Applied Linguistics, University of Warwick; Samraj, B. “Introductions in Research Articles: Variations Across Disciplines.” English for Specific Purposes 21 (2002): 1–17; Swales, John and Christine B. Feak. Academic Writing for Graduate Students: Essential Skills and Tasks . 2nd edition. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2004 ; Writing Your Introduction. Department of English Writing Guide. George Mason University.

Writing Tip

Avoid the "Dictionary" Introduction

Giving the dictionary definition of words related to the research problem may appear appropriate because it is important to define specific terminology that readers may be unfamiliar with. However, anyone can look a word up in the dictionary and a general dictionary is not a particularly authoritative source because it doesn't take into account the context of your topic and doesn't offer particularly detailed information. Also, placed in the context of a particular discipline, a term or concept may have a different meaning than what is found in a general dictionary. If you feel that you must seek out an authoritative definition, use a subject specific dictionary or encyclopedia [e.g., if you are a sociology student, search for dictionaries of sociology]. A good database for obtaining definitive definitions of concepts or terms is Credo Reference .

Saba, Robert. The College Research Paper. Florida International University; Introductions. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina.

Another Writing Tip

When Do I Begin?

A common question asked at the start of any paper is, "Where should I begin?" An equally important question to ask yourself is, "When do I begin?" Research problems in the social sciences rarely rest in isolation from history. Therefore, it is important to lay a foundation for understanding the historical context underpinning the research problem. However, this information should be brief and succinct and begin at a point in time that illustrates the study's overall importance. For example, a study that investigates coffee cultivation and export in West Africa as a key stimulus for local economic growth needs to describe the beginning of exporting coffee in the region and establishing why economic growth is important. You do not need to give a long historical explanation about coffee exports in Africa. If a research problem requires a substantial exploration of the historical context, do this in the literature review section. In your introduction, make note of this as part of the "roadmap" [see below] that you use to describe the organization of your paper.

Introductions. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; “Writing Introductions.” In Good Essay Writing: A Social Sciences Guide . Peter Redman. 4th edition. (London: Sage, 2011), pp. 63-70.

Yet Another Writing Tip

Always End with a Roadmap

The final paragraph or sentences of your introduction should forecast your main arguments and conclusions and provide a brief description of the rest of the paper [the "roadmap"] that let's the reader know where you are going and what to expect. A roadmap is important because it helps the reader place the research problem within the context of their own perspectives about the topic. In addition, concluding your introduction with an explicit roadmap tells the reader that you have a clear understanding of the structural purpose of your paper. In this way, the roadmap acts as a type of promise to yourself and to your readers that you will follow a consistent and coherent approach to addressing the topic of inquiry. Refer to it often to help keep your writing focused and organized.

Cassuto, Leonard. “On the Dissertation: How to Write the Introduction.” The Chronicle of Higher Education , May 28, 2018; Radich, Michael. A Student's Guide to Writing in East Asian Studies . (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Writing n. d.), pp. 35-37.

• << Previous: Executive Summary
• Next: The C.A.R.S. Model >>
• Last Updated: May 6, 2024 9:06 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

How Should I Contextualise and Position My Study?

• First Online: 28 June 2019

Cite this chapter

• Ray Cooksey 3 &
• Gael McDonald 4  

1875 Accesses

The focus of this chapter is on contextualising and positioning your research, which involves clarifying your assumptions, stating your intentions and goals and drawing boundaries around your research and its context(s). When you appropriately contextualise your study, you are making clear (1) where you, as researcher, well as your data sources, as participants, are coming from (‘positioning’ arguments) as well as larger contextual considerations (e.g., ethics, stakeholders); (2) what assumptions you are making in order to make your research ‘do-able’; (3) what you will/will not be addressing in your research (e.g., encompassing research goals, frames, literature foundations, questions and/or hypotheses) and why; (4) what contributions and impacts you see your research making, and, importantly, (5) what your research context(s) are and their implications for what you can do and what you may learn. Influences on your research may come from any of these domains, so a crucial part of your research journey will be recognising, balancing and managing the most relevant and impactful of these contextual influences, dealing effectively with constraints and being opportunistic where the need arises – all in pursuit of carrying out a convincing research project.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

AIATSIS. (2012). Guidelines for ethical research in Australian Indigenous studies . Canberra, Australia: Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies.

Google Scholar  

Allen, P., Maguire, S., & McKelvey, B. (Eds.). (2011). The Sage handbook of complexity and management . Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Beach, L. R. (Ed.). (1998). Image theory: Theoretical and empirical foundations . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Benzies, K. M., Premji, S., Hayden, K. A., & Serrett, K. (2006). State-of-the-evidence reviews: Advantages and challenges of including grey literature. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 2, 55–61.

Article   Google Scholar  

Brunswik, E. (1952). The conceptual framework of psychology . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Brunswik, E. (1956). Perception and the representative design of psychological experiments (2nd ed.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2015). Business research methods (4th ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Campbell, R., et al. (2012). Evaluating meta ethnography: Systematic analysis and synthesis of qualitative research. Health Technology Assessment , 15 (43).

Cooksey, R. W. (1996). Judgment analysis: Theory, methods, and applications . San Diego: Academic Press.

Chilisa, B. (2012). Indigenous research methodologies . Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education (7th ed.). New York: Routledge.

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Doyle, L. H. (2003). Synthesis through meta-ethnography: Paradoxes, enhancements, and possibilities. Qualitative Research, 3 (3), 321–344.

Fisher, C. (2010). Researching and writing a dissertation: A guidebook for business students (3rd ed.). Harlow, UK: Prentice Education Ltd.

Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P. M., & The ABC Research Group. (1999). Simple heuristics that make us smart . New York: Oxford University Press.

Gregson, W. (2016). Harnessing sources of innovation, useful knowledge and leadership within a complex public sector agency network: A reflective practice perspective. Unpublished PhD.I portfolio, UNE Business School, University of New England, Armidale, NSW.

Hammond, K. R. (1996). Human judgment and social policy . New York: Oxford University Press.

Hammond, K. R., & Stewart, T. R. (Eds.). (2001). The essential Brunswik: Beginnings, explications, applications . New York: Oxford University Press.

Hattie, J. A. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement . London: Routledge.

Kaptchuk, T. J. (2001). The double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial: Gold standard or golden calf? Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 54 (6), 541–549.

Kaptchuk, T. J. (2003). Effect of interpretive bias on research evidence. BMJ, 326 , 1453–1455.

Kovach, M. (2009). Indigenous methodologies: Characteristics, conversations, and contexts . Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Lewis, V., & Habeshaw, S. (1997). 53 interesting ways to supervise student projects, dissertations and theses . Bristol, UK: Technical and Educational Services Ltd.

Lichtenstein, S. A., & Slovic, P. (Eds.). (2006). The construction of preference . New York: Cambridge University Press.

Mauthner, M., Jessop, J., Miller, T., & Birch, M. (2012). Ethics in qualitative research (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications.

NHMRC, ARC, & UA (2018). National statement on ethical conduct in human research 2007 (updated 2018) . The National Health and Medical Research Council, the Australian Research Council and Universities Australia. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

NHMRC. (2018). Ethical conduct in research with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and communities: Guidelines for researchers and stakeholders . Canberra, Australia: The National Health and Medical Research Council.

Robson, M. (2011). The use and disclosure of intuition(s) by leaders in Australian organisations: A grounded theory . Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, School of Economics, Business & Public Policy, University of New England, Armidale, NSW.

Schuelka, M., & Maxwell, T. W. (Eds.). (2016). Education in Bhutan: Culture, schooling, and gross national happiness . Singapore: Springer Science.

Senge, P. M. (1994). The fifth discipline fieldbook: Strategies and tools for building a learning organization . New York: Crown Business.

Sinclair, M. (Ed.). (2014). Handbook of research methods on intuition . Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishers.

Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (Eds.). (2010). Sage handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Thomas, R. M., & Brubaker, D. L. (2008). Theses and dissertations: A guide to planning, research and writing (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Walsh, D., & Downe, S. (2005). Meta-synthesis method for qualitative research: A literature review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 50 (2), 204–211.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

UNE Business School, University of New England, Armidale, NSW, Australia

Ray Cooksey

RMIT University Vietnam, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

Gael McDonald

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ray Cooksey .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Cooksey, R., McDonald, G. (2019). How Should I Contextualise and Position My Study?. In: Surviving and Thriving in Postgraduate Research. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-7747-1_10

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-7747-1_10

Published : 28 June 2019

Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-13-7746-4

Online ISBN : 978-981-13-7747-1

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Advanced search
• Peer review

Why ‘context’ is important for research

Context is something we’ve been thinking a lot about at ScienceOpen recently. It comes from the Latin ‘ con ’ and ‘ texere ’ (to form ‘ contextus ’), which means ‘weave together’. The implications for science are fairly obvious: modern research is about weaving together different strands of information, thought, and data to place your results into the context of existing research. This is the reason why we have introductory and discussion sections at the intra-article level.

But what about context at a higher level?

Context can defined as: “ The circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood .” Simple follow on questions might be then, what is the context of a research article? How do we define that context? How do we build on that to do science more efficiently? The whole point for the existence of research articles is that they can be understood by as broad an audience as possible so that their re-use is maximised.

There are many things that impinge upon the context of research. Paywalls, secretive and exclusive peer review, lack of discovery, lack of inter-operability, lack of accessibility. The list is practically endless, and a general by-product of a failure for traditional scholarly publishing models to embrace a Web-based era.

While a lot of excellent new research platforms now feature slick discovery tools and features, we feel that this falls short of what is really needed for optimal research re-use in the digital age.

Discovery is the pathway to context. Context of an article is all about how research fits into increasingly complex domains, and using structured networks to decipher its value. With the power of the internet at our disposal, putting research in context should be of key importance in a world where there is ever more research being published that is impossible to manually filter.

Tracking the genealogy of research

Citations are perhaps what we might consider to be academic context. These form the structured networks or genealogies of an idea in their rawest sense. Through citations we gain a small amount of understanding into how research is being re-used by other researchers, and also the gateway to understanding what it is those citations are telling us.

At ScienceOpen, we show all articles and article records that cite a particular research article, and also provide links to similar articles on our platform. These are drawn at the moment from almost 12 million article records, so can potentially form huge networks of information.

In addition we show which articles are most similar based on keywords, and also which open access articles are citing a particular work. You can explore each of these in more depth, and begin to track research networks! So it’s like enhanced discovery, but with a smattering of cherries on top.

Generating context through engagement

One of the great things about context is that it is flexible and can be defined by user engagement. Take peer review for example. This is a way of adding context to a paper, by drawing on external expertise and perspective to enhance the content of a research article. Peer evaluation of this sort is crucial for defining the context of a paper, and should not be hidden away out of sight and use. As we use public post-publication peer review at ScienceOpen, the full discussion and process of research is transparent.

Other ways of generating simple context are through sharing and recommendations of articles. The more this is done, the more you can understand which articles are of wider interest.

Social context

The rise of altmetrics can be seen as the broadening how we think about context. Altmetrics are a pathway to understanding how articles have been discussed, mentioned or shared in online sources including mainstream news outlets, blogs, and a variety of social networks.

On every single article record (almost 12 million at the moment), we show Altmetric scores. You can also sort searches by Altmetric, which provides additional context for which articles are generating the most societal discussion online. This is great if you want to track social media trends in a particular field, and again is all about placing research objects into a broader context.

So these are just some of the ways in which we put research in context, and we do it on a massive scale. Let us know in the comments what you think ‘research in context’ is all about, and why you think it’s important!

2 thoughts on “Why ‘context’ is important for research”

• Pingback: Welcome to the Italian Society of Victimology – ScienceOpen Blog
• Pingback: ScienceOpen smashes through the 20 million article record mark – ScienceOpen Blog

Comments are closed.

• Resources Home 🏠
• Try SciSpace Copilot
• Search research papers
• Add Copilot Extension
• Try AI Detector
• Try Paraphraser
• Try Citation Generator
• April Papers
• June Papers
• July Papers

How to Write an Effective Background of the Study: A Comprehensive Guide

Table of Contents

The background of the study in a research paper offers a clear context, highlighting why the research is essential and the problem it aims to address.

As a researcher, this foundational section is essential for you to chart the course of your study, Moreover, it allows readers to understand the importance and path of your research.

Whether in academic communities or to the general public, a well-articulated background aids in communicating the essence of the research effectively.

While it may seem straightforward, crafting an effective background requires a blend of clarity, precision, and relevance. Therefore, this article aims to be your guide, offering insights into:

• Understanding the concept of the background of the study.
• Learning how to craft a compelling background effectively.
• Identifying and sidestepping common pitfalls in writing the background.
• Exploring practical examples that bring the theory to life.
• Enhancing both your writing and reading of academic papers.

Keeping these compelling insights in mind, let's delve deeper into the details of the empirical background of the study, exploring its definition, distinctions, and the art of writing it effectively.

What is the background of the study?

The background of the study is placed at the beginning of a research paper. It provides the context, circumstances, and history that led to the research problem or topic being explored.

It offers readers a snapshot of the existing knowledge on the topic and the reasons that spurred your current research.

When crafting the background of your study, consider the following questions.

• What's the context of your research?
• Which previous research will you refer to?
• Are there any knowledge gaps in the existing relevant literature?
• How will you justify the need for your current research?
• Have you concisely presented the research question or problem?

In a typical research paper structure, after presenting the background, the introduction section follows. The introduction delves deeper into the specific objectives of the research and often outlines the structure or main points that the paper will cover.

Together, they create a cohesive starting point, ensuring readers are well-equipped to understand the subsequent sections of the research paper.

While the background of the study and the introduction section of the research manuscript may seem similar and sometimes even overlap, each serves a unique purpose in the research narrative.

Difference between background and introduction

A well-written background of the study and introduction are preliminary sections of a research paper and serve distinct purposes.

Here’s a detailed tabular comparison between the two of them.

What is the relevance of the background of the study?

It is necessary for you to provide your readers with the background of your research. Without this, readers may grapple with questions such as: Why was this specific research topic chosen? What led to this decision? Why is this study relevant? Is it worth their time?

Such uncertainties can deter them from fully engaging with your study, leading to the rejection of your research paper. Additionally, this can diminish its impact in the academic community, and reduce its potential for real-world application or policy influence .

To address these concerns and offer clarity, the background section plays a pivotal role in research papers.

The background of the study in research is important as it:

• Provides context: It offers readers a clear picture of the existing knowledge, helping them understand where the current research fits in.
• Highlights relevance: By detailing the reasons for the research, it underscores the study's significance and its potential impact.
• Guides the narrative: The background shapes the narrative flow of the paper, ensuring a logical progression from what's known to what the research aims to uncover.
• Enhances engagement: A well-crafted background piques the reader's interest, encouraging them to delve deeper into the research paper.
• Aids in comprehension: By setting the scenario, it aids readers in better grasping the research objectives, methodologies, and findings.

How to write the background of the study in a research paper?

The journey of presenting a compelling argument begins with the background study. This section holds the power to either captivate or lose the reader's interest.

An effectively written background not only provides context but also sets the tone for the entire research paper. It's the bridge that connects a broad topic to a specific research question, guiding readers through the logic behind the study.

But how does one craft a background of the study that resonates, informs, and engages?

Here, we’ll discuss how to write an impactful background study, ensuring your research stands out and captures the attention it deserves.

Identify the research problem

The first step is to start pinpointing the specific issue or gap you're addressing. This should be a significant and relevant problem in your field.

A well-defined problem is specific, relevant, and significant to your field. It should resonate with both experts and readers.

Here’s more on how to write an effective research problem .

Provide context

Here, you need to provide a broader perspective, illustrating how your research aligns with or contributes to the overarching context or the wider field of study. A comprehensive context is grounded in facts, offers multiple perspectives, and is relatable.

In addition to stating facts, you should weave a story that connects key concepts from the past, present, and potential future research. For instance, consider the following approach.

• Offer a brief history of the topic, highlighting major milestones or turning points that have shaped the current landscape.
• Discuss contemporary developments or current trends that provide relevant information to your research problem. This could include technological advancements, policy changes, or shifts in societal attitudes.
• Highlight the views of different stakeholders. For a topic like sustainable agriculture, this could mean discussing the perspectives of farmers, environmentalists, policymakers, and consumers.
• If relevant, compare and contrast global trends with local conditions and circumstances. This can offer readers a more holistic understanding of the topic.

Literature review

For this step, you’ll deep dive into the existing literature on the same topic. It's where you explore what scholars, researchers, and experts have already discovered or discussed about your topic.

Conducting a thorough literature review isn't just a recap of past works. To elevate its efficacy, it's essential to analyze the methods, outcomes, and intricacies of prior research work, demonstrating a thorough engagement with the existing body of knowledge.

• Instead of merely listing past research study, delve into their methodologies, findings, and limitations. Highlight groundbreaking studies and those that had contrasting results.
• Try to identify patterns. Look for recurring themes or trends in the literature. Are there common conclusions or contentious points?
• The next step would be to connect the dots. Show how different pieces of research relate to each other. This can help in understanding the evolution of thought on the topic.

By showcasing what's already known, you can better highlight the background of the study in research.

Highlight the research gap

This step involves identifying the unexplored areas or unanswered questions in the existing literature. Your research seeks to address these gaps, providing new insights or answers.

A clear research gap shows you've thoroughly engaged with existing literature and found an area that needs further exploration.

How can you efficiently highlight the research gap?

• Find the overlooked areas. Point out topics or angles that haven't been adequately addressed.
• Highlight questions that have emerged due to recent developments or changing circumstances.
• Identify areas where insights from other fields might be beneficial but haven't been explored yet.

State your objectives

Here, it’s all about laying out your game plan — What do you hope to achieve with your research? You need to mention a clear objective that’s specific, actionable, and directly tied to the research gap.

How to state your objectives?

• List the primary questions guiding your research.
• If applicable, state any hypotheses or predictions you aim to test.
• Specify what you hope to achieve, whether it's new insights, solutions, or methodologies.

Discuss the significance

This step describes your 'why'. Why is your research important? What broader implications does it have?

The significance of “why” should be both theoretical (adding to the existing literature) and practical (having real-world implications).

How do we effectively discuss the significance?

• Discuss how your research adds to the existing body of knowledge.
• Highlight how your findings could be applied in real-world scenarios, from policy changes to on-ground practices.
• Point out how your research could pave the way for further studies or open up new areas of exploration.

Summarize your points

A concise summary acts as a bridge, smoothly transitioning readers from the background to the main body of the paper. This step is a brief recap, ensuring that readers have grasped the foundational concepts.

How to summarize your study?

• Revisit the key points discussed, from the research problem to its significance.
• Prepare the reader for the subsequent sections, ensuring they understand the research's direction.

Include examples for better understanding

Research and come up with real-world or hypothetical examples to clarify complex concepts or to illustrate the practical applications of your research. Relevant examples make abstract ideas tangible, aiding comprehension.

How to include an effective example of the background of the study?

• Use past events or scenarios to explain concepts.
• Craft potential scenarios to demonstrate the implications of your findings.
• Use comparisons to simplify complex ideas, making them more relatable.

Crafting a compelling background of the study in research is about striking the right balance between providing essential context, showcasing your comprehensive understanding of the existing literature, and highlighting the unique value of your research .

While writing the background of the study, keep your readers at the forefront of your mind. Every piece of information, every example, and every objective should be geared toward helping them understand and appreciate your research.

How to avoid mistakes in the background of the study in research?

To write a well-crafted background of the study, you should be aware of the following potential research pitfalls .

• Stay away from ambiguity. Always assume that your reader might not be familiar with intricate details about your topic.
• Avoid discussing unrelated themes. Stick to what's directly relevant to your research problem.
• Ensure your background is well-organized. Information should flow logically, making it easy for readers to follow.
• While it's vital to provide context, avoid overwhelming the reader with excessive details that might not be directly relevant to your research problem.
• Ensure you've covered the most significant and relevant studies i` n your field. Overlooking key pieces of literature can make your background seem incomplete.
• Aim for a balanced presentation of facts, and avoid showing overt bias or presenting only one side of an argument.
• While academic paper often involves specialized terms, ensure they're adequately explained or use simpler alternatives when possible.
• Every claim or piece of information taken from existing literature should be appropriately cited. Failing to do so can lead to issues of plagiarism.
• Avoid making the background too lengthy. While thoroughness is appreciated, it should not come at the expense of losing the reader's interest. Maybe prefer to keep it to one-two paragraphs long.
• Especially in rapidly evolving fields, it's crucial to ensure that your literature review section is up-to-date and includes the latest research.

Example of an effective background of the study

Let's consider a topic: "The Impact of Online Learning on Student Performance." The ideal background of the study section for this topic would be as follows.

In the last decade, the rise of the internet has revolutionized many sectors, including education. Online learning platforms, once a supplementary educational tool, have now become a primary mode of instruction for many institutions worldwide. With the recent global events, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a rapid shift from traditional classroom learning to online modes, making it imperative to understand its effects on student performance.

Previous studies have explored various facets of online learning, from its accessibility to its flexibility. However, there is a growing need to assess its direct impact on student outcomes. While some educators advocate for its benefits, citing the convenience and vast resources available, others express concerns about potential drawbacks, such as reduced student engagement and the challenges of self-discipline.

This research aims to delve deeper into this debate, evaluating the true impact of online learning on student performance.

Why is this example considered as an effective background section of a research paper?

This background section example effectively sets the context by highlighting the rise of online learning and its increased relevance due to recent global events. It references prior research on the topic, indicating a foundation built on existing knowledge.

By presenting both the potential advantages and concerns of online learning, it establishes a balanced view, leading to the clear purpose of the study: to evaluate the true impact of online learning on student performance.

As we've explored, writing an effective background of the study in research requires clarity, precision, and a keen understanding of both the broader landscape and the specific details of your topic.

From identifying the research problem, providing context, reviewing existing literature to highlighting research gaps and stating objectives, each step is pivotal in shaping the narrative of your research. And while there are best practices to follow, it's equally crucial to be aware of the pitfalls to avoid.

Remember, writing or refining the background of your study is essential to engage your readers, familiarize them with the research context, and set the ground for the insights your research project will unveil.

Drawing from all the important details, insights and guidance shared, you're now in a strong position to craft a background of the study that not only informs but also engages and resonates with your readers.

Now that you've a clear understanding of what the background of the study aims to achieve, the natural progression is to delve into the next crucial component — write an effective introduction section of a research paper. Read here .

Frequently Asked Questions

The background of the study should include a clear context for the research, references to relevant previous studies, identification of knowledge gaps, justification for the current research, a concise overview of the research problem or question, and an indication of the study's significance or potential impact.

The background of the study is written to provide readers with a clear understanding of the context, significance, and rationale behind the research. It offers a snapshot of existing knowledge on the topic, highlights the relevance of the study, and sets the stage for the research questions and objectives. It ensures that readers can grasp the importance of the research and its place within the broader field of study.

The background of the study is a section in a research paper that provides context, circumstances, and history leading to the research problem or topic being explored. It presents existing knowledge on the topic and outlines the reasons that spurred the current research, helping readers understand the research's foundation and its significance in the broader academic landscape.

The number of paragraphs in the background of the study can vary based on the complexity of the topic and the depth of the context required. Typically, it might range from 3 to 5 paragraphs, but in more detailed or complex research papers, it could be longer. The key is to ensure that all relevant information is presented clearly and concisely, without unnecessary repetition.

You might also like

Introducing SciSpace’s Citation Booster To Increase Research Visibility

AI for Meta-Analysis — A Comprehensive Guide

How To Write An Argumentative Essay

Library Research at Cornell: Find the Context

• The Research Steps
• Which Topic?
• Find the Context
• Find Articles
• Evaluate Sources
• Cite Sources
• Review the Steps
• Find Primary Sources
• Find Images
• Library Jargon

Using Encyclopedia Articles and Dictionaries to Understand a Topic

Find the context and background information.

After you identify your research topic and some keywords that describe it, find and read articles in subject encyclopedias, dictionaries, and handbooks. These articles will help you understand the context (historical, cultural, disciplinary) of your topic. They are the foundation supporting further research. The most common background sources are subject encyclopedias and dictionaries from our print and online reference collection. Class textbooks also provide definitions of terms and background information.

Finding Encyclopedias and Dictionaries

Use the Advanced search in our Catalog . Enter encyclopedia in Title AND type in your topic in All Fields

Use our Online Encyclopedias guide to locate reliable articles on your topic.

Browse the Dictionaries and Encyclopedias section of Databases

Ask a reference librarian to suggest appropriate titles.

Browse our Subject Guides .

Tip: Exploit Bibliographies

Read the background information and note any useful sources (books, journals, magazines, etc.) listed in the bibliography at the end of the encyclopedia article or dictionary entry. The sources cited in the bibliography are good starting points for further research.

Look up these sources in our catalogs and periodical databases. Check the subject headings listed in the subject field of the online record for these books and articles. Then do subject searches using those subject headings to locate additional titles.

Remember that many of the books and articles you find will themselves have bibliographies. Check these bibliographies for additional useful resources for your research.

By using this technique of routinely following up on sources cited in bibliographies, you can generate a surprisingly large number of books and articles on your topic in a relatively short time.

Reference Help

• << Previous: Which Topic?
• Next: Find Books >>
• Last Updated: Mar 22, 2024 11:29 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.cornell.edu/sevensteps

How to Write the Discussion Section of a Research Paper

The discussion section of a research paper analyzes and interprets the findings, provides context, compares them with previous studies, identifies limitations, and suggests future research directions.

Updated on September 15, 2023

Structure your discussion section right, and you’ll be cited more often while doing a greater service to the scientific community. So, what actually goes into the discussion section? And how do you write it?

The discussion section of your research paper is where you let the reader know how your study is positioned in the literature, what to take away from your paper, and how your work helps them. It can also include your conclusions and suggestions for future studies.

First, we’ll define all the parts of your discussion paper, and then look into how to write a strong, effective discussion section for your paper or manuscript.

Discussion section: what is it, what it does

The discussion section comes later in your paper, following the introduction, methods, and results. The discussion sets up your study’s conclusions. Its main goals are to present, interpret, and provide a context for your results.

What is it?

The discussion section provides an analysis and interpretation of the findings, compares them with previous studies, identifies limitations, and suggests future directions for research.

This section combines information from the preceding parts of your paper into a coherent story. By this point, the reader already knows why you did your study (introduction), how you did it (methods), and what happened (results). In the discussion, you’ll help the reader connect the ideas from these sections.

Why is it necessary?

The discussion provides context and interpretations for the results. It also answers the questions posed in the introduction. While the results section describes your findings, the discussion explains what they say. This is also where you can describe the impact or implications of your research.

Adds context for your results

Most research studies aim to answer a question, replicate a finding, or address limitations in the literature. These goals are first described in the introduction. However, in the discussion section, the author can refer back to them to explain how the study's objective was achieved. 

Shows what your results actually mean and real-world implications

The discussion can also describe the effect of your findings on research or practice. How are your results significant for readers, other researchers, or policymakers?

What to include in your discussion (in the correct order)

A complete and effective discussion section should at least touch on the points described below.

Summary of key findings

The discussion should begin with a brief factual summary of the results. Concisely overview the main results you obtained.

Begin with key findings with supporting evidence

Your results section described a list of findings, but what message do they send when you look at them all together?

Your findings were detailed in the results section, so there’s no need to repeat them here, but do provide at least a few highlights. This will help refresh the reader’s memory and help them focus on the big picture.

Read the first paragraph of the discussion section in this article (PDF) for an example of how to start this part of your paper. Notice how the authors break down their results and follow each description sentence with an explanation of why each finding is relevant. 

State clearly and concisely

Following a clear and direct writing style is especially important in the discussion section. After all, this is where you will make some of the most impactful points in your paper. While the results section often contains technical vocabulary, such as statistical terms, the discussion section lets you describe your findings more clearly. 

Interpretation of results

Once you’ve given your reader an overview of your results, you need to interpret those results. In other words, what do your results mean? Discuss the findings’ implications and significance in relation to your research question or hypothesis.

Analyze and interpret your findings

Look into your findings and explore what’s behind them or what may have caused them. If your introduction cited theories or studies that could explain your findings, use these sources as a basis to discuss your results.

For example, look at the second paragraph in the discussion section of this article on waggling honey bees. Here, the authors explore their results based on information from the literature.

Unexpected or contradictory results

Sometimes, your findings are not what you expect. Here’s where you describe this and try to find a reason for it. Could it be because of the method you used? Does it have something to do with the variables analyzed? Comparing your methods with those of other similar studies can help with this task.

Context and comparison with previous work

Refer to related studies to place your research in a larger context and the literature. Compare and contrast your findings with existing literature, highlighting similarities, differences, and/or contradictions.

How your work compares or contrasts with previous work

Studies with similar findings to yours can be cited to show the strength of your findings. Information from these studies can also be used to help explain your results. Differences between your findings and others in the literature can also be discussed here. 

How to divide this section into subsections

If you have more than one objective in your study or many key findings, you can dedicate a separate section to each of these. Here’s an example of this approach. You can see that the discussion section is divided into topics and even has a separate heading for each of them. 

Limitations

Many journals require you to include the limitations of your study in the discussion. Even if they don’t, there are good reasons to mention these in your paper.

Why limitations don’t have a negative connotation

A study’s limitations are points to be improved upon in future research. While some of these may be flaws in your method, many may be due to factors you couldn’t predict.

Examples include time constraints or small sample sizes. Pointing this out will help future researchers avoid or address these issues. This part of the discussion can also include any attempts you have made to reduce the impact of these limitations, as in this study .

How limitations add to a researcher's credibility

Pointing out the limitations of your study demonstrates transparency. It also shows that you know your methods well and can conduct a critical assessment of them.  

Implications and significance

The final paragraph of the discussion section should contain the take-home messages for your study. It can also cite the “strong points” of your study, to contrast with the limitations section.

Restate your hypothesis

Remind the reader what your hypothesis was before you conducted the study. 

How was it proven or disproven?

Identify your main findings and describe how they relate to your hypothesis.

How your results contribute to the literature

Were you able to answer your research question? Or address a gap in the literature?

Future implications of your research

Describe the impact that your results may have on the topic of study. Your results may show, for instance, that there are still limitations in the literature for future studies to address. There may be a need for studies that extend your findings in a specific way. You also may need additional research to corroborate your findings. 

Sample discussion section

This fictitious example covers all the aspects discussed above. Your actual discussion section will probably be much longer, but you can read this to get an idea of everything your discussion should cover.

Our results showed that the presence of cats in a household is associated with higher levels of perceived happiness by its human occupants. These findings support our hypothesis and demonstrate the association between pet ownership and well-being. 

The present findings align with those of Bao and Schreer (2016) and Hardie et al. (2023), who observed greater life satisfaction in pet owners relative to non-owners. Although the present study did not directly evaluate life satisfaction, this factor may explain the association between happiness and cat ownership observed in our sample.

Our findings must be interpreted in light of some limitations, such as the focus on cat ownership only rather than pets as a whole. This may limit the generalizability of our results.

Nevertheless, this study had several strengths. These include its strict exclusion criteria and use of a standardized assessment instrument to investigate the relationships between pets and owners. These attributes bolster the accuracy of our results and reduce the influence of confounding factors, increasing the strength of our conclusions. Future studies may examine the factors that mediate the association between pet ownership and happiness to better comprehend this phenomenon.

This brief discussion begins with a quick summary of the results and hypothesis. The next paragraph cites previous research and compares its findings to those of this study. Information from previous studies is also used to help interpret the findings. After discussing the results of the study, some limitations are pointed out. The paper also explains why these limitations may influence the interpretation of results. Then, final conclusions are drawn based on the study, and directions for future research are suggested.

How to make your discussion flow naturally

If you find writing in scientific English challenging, the discussion and conclusions are often the hardest parts of the paper to write. That’s because you’re not just listing up studies, methods, and outcomes. You’re actually expressing your thoughts and interpretations in words.

• How formal should it be?
• What words should you use, or not use?
• How do you meet strict word limits, or make it longer and more informative?

Always give it your best, but sometimes a helping hand can, well, help. Getting a professional edit can help clarify your work’s importance while improving the English used to explain it. When readers know the value of your work, they’ll cite it. We’ll assign your study to an expert editor knowledgeable in your area of research. Their work will clarify your discussion, helping it to tell your story. Find out more about AJE Editing.

Adam Goulston, PsyD, MS, MBA, MISD, ELS

Science Marketing Consultant

See our "Privacy Policy"

Ensure your structure and ideas are consistent and clearly communicated

Pair your Premium Editing with our add-on service Presubmission Review for an overall assessment of your manuscript.

• Open access
• Published: 29 April 2024

What is context in knowledge translation? Results of a systematic scoping review

• Tugce Schmitt   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6893-6428 1 ,
• Katarzyna Czabanowska 1 &
• Peter Schröder-Bäck 1  

Health Research Policy and Systems volume  22 , Article number:  52 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

210 Accesses

4 Altmetric

Metrics details

Knowledge Translation (KT) aims to convey novel ideas to relevant stakeholders, motivating their response or action to improve people’s health. Initially, the KT literature focused on evidence-based medicine, applying findings from laboratory and clinical research to disease diagnosis and treatment. Since the early 2000s, the scope of KT has expanded to include decision-making with health policy implications.

This systematic scoping review aims to assess the evolving knowledge-to-policy concepts, that is, macro-level KT theories, models and frameworks (KT TMFs). While significant attention has been devoted to transferring knowledge to healthcare settings (i.e. implementing health policies, programmes or measures at the meso-level), the definition of 'context' in the realm of health policymaking at the macro-level remains underexplored in the KT literature. This study aims to close the gap.

A total of 32 macro-level KT TMFs were identified, with only a limited subset of them offering detailed insights into contextual factors that matter in health policymaking. Notably, the majority of these studies prompt policy changes in low- and middle-income countries and received support from international organisations, the European Union, development agencies or philanthropic entities.

Peer Review reports

Few concepts are used by health researchers as vaguely and yet as widely as Knowledge Translation (KT), a catch-all term that accommodates a broad spectrum of ambitions. Arguably, to truly understand the role of context in KT, we first need to clarify what KT means. The World Health Organization (WHO) defines KT as ‘the synthesis, exchange and application of knowledge by relevant stakeholders to accelerate the benefits of global and local innovation in strengthening health systems and improving people’s health’ [ 1 ]. Here, particular attention should be paid to ‘innovation’, given that without unpacking this term, the meaning of KT would still remain ambiguous. Rogers’ seminal work ‘Diffusion of Innovations’ [ 2 ] defines innovation as an idea, practice or object that is perceived as novel by individuals or groups adopting it. In this context, he argues that the objective novelty of an idea in terms of the amount of time passed after its discovery holds little significance [ 2 ]. Rather, it is the subjective perception of newness by the individual that shapes their response [ 2 ]. In other words, if an idea seems novel to individuals, and thereby relevant stakeholders according to the aforementioned WHO definition, it qualifies as an innovation. From this perspective, it can be stated that a fundamental activity of KT is to communicate ideas that could be perceived as original to the targeted stakeholders, with the aim of motivating their response to improve health outcomes. This leaves us with the question of who exactly these stakeholders might be and what kind of actions would be required from them.

The scope of stakeholders in KT has evolved over time, along with their prompted responses. Initially, during the early phases of KT, the focus primarily revolved around healthcare providers and their clinical decisions, emphasising evidence-based medicine. Nearly 50 years ago, the first scientific article on KT was published, introducing Tier 1 KT, which concentrated on applying laboratory discoveries to disease diagnosis or treatment, also known as bench-to-bedside KT [ 3 ]. The primary motivation behind this initial conceptualisation of KT was to engage healthcare providers as the end-users of specific forms of knowledge, primarily related to randomised controlled trials of pharmaceuticals and evidence-based medicine [ 4 ]. In the early 2000s, the second phase of KT (Tier 2) emerged under the term ‘campus-to-clinic KT’ [ 3 ]. This facet, also known as translational research, was concerned with using evidence from health services research in healthcare provision, both in practice and policy [ 4 ]. Consequently, by including decision-makers as relevant end-users, KT scholars expanded the realm of research-to-action from the clinical environment to policy-relevant decision-making [ 5 ]. Following this trajectory, additional KT schemes (Tier 3–Tier 5) have been introduced into academic discourse, encompassing the dissemination, implementation and broader integration of knowledge into public policies [ 6 , 7 ]. Notably, the latest scheme (Tier 5) is becoming increasingly popular and represents the broadest approach, which describes the translation of knowledge to global communities and aims to involve fundamental, universal change in attitudes, policies and social systems [ 7 ].

In other words, a noticeable shift in KT has occurred with time towards macro-level interventions, named initially as evidence- based policymaking and later corrected to evidence- informed policymaking. In parallel with these significant developments, various alternative terms to KT have emerged, including ‘implementation science’, ‘knowledge transfer’, and ‘dissemination and research use’, often with considerable overlap [ 8 ]. Arguably, among the plethora of alternative terms proposed, implementation science stands out prominently. While initially centred on evidence-based medicine at the meso-level (e.g. implementing medical guidelines), it has since broadened its focus to ‘encompass all aspects of research relevant to the scientific study of methods to promote the uptake of research findings into routine settings in clinical, community and policy contexts’ [ 9 ], closely mirroring the definition to KT. Thus, KT, along with activities under different names that share the same objective, has evolved into an umbrella term over the years, encompassing a wide range of strategies aimed at enhancing the impact of research not only on clinical practice but also on public policies [ 10 ]. Following the adoption of such a comprehensive definition of KT, some researchers have asserted that using evidence in public policies is not merely commendable but essential [ 11 ].

In alignment with the evolution of KT from (bio-)medical sciences to public policies, an increasing number of scholars have offered explanations on how health policies should be developed [ 12 ], indicating a growing focus on exploring the mechanisms of health policymaking in the KT literature. However, unlike in the earlier phases of KT, which aimed to transfer knowledge from the laboratory to healthcare provision, decisions made for public policies may be less technical and more complex than those in clinical settings [ 3 , 13 , 14 ]. Indeed, social scientists point out that scholarly works on evidence use in health policies exhibit theoretical shortcomings as they lack engagement with political science and public administration theories and concepts [ 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 ]; only a few of these works employ policy theories and political concepts to guide data collection and make sense of their findings [ 19 ]. Similarly, contemporary literature that conceptualises KT as an umbrella term for both clinical and public policy decision-making, with calls for a generic ‘research-to-action’ [ 20 ], may fail to recognise the different types of actions required to change clinical practices and influence health policies. In many respects, such calls can even lead to a misconception that evidence-informed policymaking is simply a scaled-up version of evidence-based medicine [ 21 ].

In this study, we systematically review knowledge translation theories, models and frameworks (also known as KT TMFs) that were developed for health policies. Essentially, KT TMFs can be depicted as bridges that connect findings across diverse studies, as they establish a common language and standardise the measurement and assessment of desired policy changes [ 22 ]. This makes them essential for generalising implementation efforts and research findings [ 23 ]. While distinctions between a theory, a model or a framework are not always crystal-clear [ 24 ], the following definitions shed light on how they are interpreted in the context of KT. To start with, theory can be described as a set of analytical principles or statements crafted to structure our observations, enhance our understanding and explain the world [ 24 ]. Within implementation science, theories are encapsulated as either generalised models or frameworks. In other words, they are integrated into broader concepts, allowing researchers to form assumptions that help clarify phenomena and create hypotheses for testing [ 25 ].

Whereas theories in the KT literature are explanatory as well as descriptive, KT models are only descriptive with a more narrowly defined scope of explanation [ 24 ]; hence they have a more specific focus than theories [ 25 ]. KT models are created to facilitate the formulation of specific assumptions regarding a set of parameters or variables, which can subsequently be tested against outcomes using predetermined methods [ 25 ]. By offering simplified representations of complex situations, KT models can describe programme elements expected to produce desired results, or theoretical constructs believed to influence or moderate observed outcomes. In this way, they encompass theories related to change or explanation [ 22 ].

Lastly, frameworks in the KT language define a set of variables and the relations among them in a broad sense [ 25 ]. Frameworks, without the aim of providing explanations, solely describe empirical phenomena, representing a structure, overview, outline, system or plan consisting of various descriptive categories and the relations between them that are presumed to account for a phenomenon [ 24 ]. They portray loosely-structured constellations of theoretical constructs, without necessarily specifying their relationships; they can also offer practical methods for achieving implementation objectives [ 22 ]. Some scholars suggest sub-classifications and categorise a framework as ‘actionable’ if it has the potential to facilitate macro-level policy changes [ 11 ].

Context, which encompasses the entire environment in which policy decisions are made, is not peripheral but central to policymaking, playing a crucial role in its conceptualisation [ 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 ]. In the KT literature, the term ‘context’ is frequently employed, albeit often with a lack of precision [ 35 ]. It tends to serve as a broad term including various elements within a situation that are relevant to KT in some way but have not been explicitly identified [36]. However, there is a growing interest in delving deeper into what context refers to, as evidenced by increasing research attention [ 31 , 32 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 ]. While the definition of context in the transfer of knowledge to healthcare settings (i.e. implementing health policies, programmes or measures at the meso-level) has been systematically studied [ 36 , 37 , 42 , 43 ], the question of how KT scholars detail context in health policymaking remains unanswered. With our systematic scoping review, we aim to close this gap.

While KT TMFs, emerged from evidence-based medicine, have historically depicted the use of evidence from laboratories or healthcare organisations as the gold standard, we aimed to assess in this study whether and to what extent the evolving face of KT, addressing health policies, succeeded in foregrounding ‘context’. Our objective was thus not to evaluate the quality of these KT TMFs but rather to explore how scholars have incorporated contextual influences into their reasoning. We conducted a systematic scoping review to explore KT TMFs that are relevant to agenda-setting, policy formulation or policy adoption, in line with the aim of this study. Therefore, publications related to policy implementation in healthcare organisations or at the provincial level, as well as those addressing policy evaluation, did not meet our inclusion criteria. Consequently, given our focus on macro-level interventions, we excluded all articles that concentrate on translating clinical research into practice (meso-level interventions) and health knowledge to patients or citizens (micro-level interventions).

Prior systematic scoping reviews in the area of KT TMFs serve as a valuable foundation upon which to build further studies [ 44 , 45 ]. Using established methodologies may ensure a validated approach, allowing for a more nuanced understanding of KT TMFs in the context of existing scholarly work. Our review methodology employed a similar approach to that followed by Strifler et al. in 2018, who conducted a systematic scoping review of KT TMFs in the field of cancer prevention and management, as well as other chronic diseases [ 44 ]. Their search strategy was preferred over others for two primary reasons. First, Strifler et al. investigated KT TMFs altogether, systematically and comprehensively. Second, unlike many other review studies on KT, they focused on macro-level KT and included all relevant keywords useful for the purpose of our study in their Ovid/MEDLINE search query [ 44 ]. For our scoping review, we adapted their search query with the assistance of a specialist librarian. This process involved eliminating terms associated with cancer and chronic diseases, removing time limitation on the published papers, and including an additional language other than English due to authors’ proficiency in German. We included articles published in peer-reviewed journals until November 2022, excluding opinion papers, conference abstracts and study protocols, without any restriction on publication date or place. Our search query is presented in Table  1 .

Following a screening methodology similar to that employed by Votruba et al. [ 11 ], the first author conducted an initial screening of the titles and abstracts of 2918 unique citations. Full texts were selected and scrutinised if they appeared relevant to the topics of agenda-setting, policy formulation or policy adoption. Among these papers, the first author also identified those that conceptualised a KT TMF. Simultaneously, the last author independently screened 2918 titles and abstracts, randomly selecting 20% of them to identify studies related to macro-level KT. Regarding papers that conceptualised a KT TMF, all those initially selected by the first author underwent a thorough examination by the last author as well. In the papers reviewed by these two authors of this study, KT TMFs were typically presented as either Tables or Figures. In cases where these visual representations did not contain sufficient information about ‘context’, the main body of the study was carefully scrutinised by both reviewers to ensure no relevant information was missed. Any unclear cases were discussed and resolved to achieve 100% inter-rater agreement between the first and second reviewers. This strategy resulted in the inclusion of 32 relevant studies. The flow chart outlining our review process is provided in Fig.  1 .

Flow chart of the review process

According to the results of our systematic scoping review (Table  2 ), the first KT TMF developed for health policies dates back to 2003, confirming the emergence of a trend that expanded the meaning of the term Knowledge Translation to include policymakers as end-users of evidence during approximately the same period. In their study, Jacobson et al. [ 46 ] present a framework derived from a literature review to enhance understanding of user groups by organising existing knowledge, identifying gaps and emphasising the importance of learning about new contexts. However, despite acknowledging the significance of the user group context, the paper lacks a thorough explanation of the authors’ understanding of this term. The second study in our scoping review provides some details. Recognising a shift from evidence-based medicine to evidence-based health policymaking in the KT literature, the article by Dobrow et al. from 2004 [ 30 ] emphasises the importance of considering contextual factors. They present a conceptual framework for evidence-based decision-making, highlighting the influence of context in KT. Illustrated through examples from colorectal cancer screening policy development, their conceptual framework emphasises the significance of context in the introduction, interpretation and application of evidence. Third, Lehoux et al. [ 47 ] examine the field of Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and its role in informing decision and policymaking in Canada. By developing a conceptual framework for HTA dissemination and use, they touch on the institutional environment and briefly describe contextual factors.

Notably, the first three publications in our scoping review are authored by scholars affiliated with Canada, which is less of a coincidence, given the role of Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), the federal funding agency for health research: The CIHR Act (Bill C-13) mandates CIHR to ensure that the translation of health knowledge permeates every aspect of its work [ 48 ]. Moreover, it was CIHR that coined the term Knowledge Translation, defining KT as ‘a dynamic and iterative process that includes the synthesis, dissemination, exchange and ethically sound application of knowledge to improve health, provide more effective health services and products, and strengthen the health care system’ [ 49 ] . This comprehensive definition has since been adapted by international organisations (IOs), including WHO. The first document published by WHO that utilised KT to influence health policies dates back to 2005, entitled ‘Bridging the “know-do” gap: Meeting on knowledge translation in global health’, an initiative that was supported by the Canadian Coalition for Global Health Research, the Canadian International Development Agency, the German Agency for Technical Cooperation and the WHO Special Programme on Research and Training in Tropical Diseases [ 1 ]. Following this official recognition by WHO, studies in our scoping review after 2005 indicate a noticeable expansion of KT, encompassing a wider geographical area than Canada.

The article of Ashford et al. from 2006 [ 50 ] discusses the challenge of policy decisions in Kenya in the health field being disconnected from scientific evidence and presents a model for translating knowledge into policy actions through agenda-setting, coalition building and policy learning. However, the framework lacks explicit incorporation of contextual factors influencing health policies. Bauman et al. [ 51 ] propose a six-step framework for successful dissemination of physical activity evidence, illustrated through four case studies from three countries (Canada, USA and Brazil) and a global perspective. They interpret contextual factors as barriers and facilitators to physical activity and public health innovations. Focusing on the USA, Gold [ 52 ] explains factors, processes and actors that shape pathways between research and its use in a summary diagram, including a reference to ‘other influences in process’ for context. Green et al. [ 4 ] examine the gap between health research and its application in public health without focusing on a specific geographical area. Their study comprehensively reviews various concepts of diffusion, dissemination and implementation in public health, proposing ways to blend diffusion theory with other theories. Their ‘utilization-focused surveillance framework’ interprets context as social determinants as structures, economics, politics and culture.

Further, the article by Dhonukshe-Rutten et al. from 2010 [ 53 ] presents a general framework that outlines the process of translating nutritional requirements into policy applications from a European perspective. The framework incorporates scientific evidence, stakeholder interests and the socio-political context. The description of this socio-political context is rather brief, encompassing political and social priorities, legal context, ethical issues and economic implications. Ir et al. [ 54 ] analyse the use of knowledge in shaping policy on health equity funds in Cambodia, with the objective of understanding how KT contributes to the development of health policies that promote equity. Yet no information on context is available in the framework that they suggest. A notable exception among these early KT TMFs until 2010 is the conceptual framework for analysing integration of targeted health interventions into health systems by Atun et al. [ 55 ], in which the authors provide details about the factors that have an influence on the process of bringing evidence to health policies. Focusing on the adoption, diffusion and assimilation of health interventions, their conceptual framework provides a systematic approach for evaluating and informing policies in this field. Compared to the previous studies discussed above, their definition of context for this framework is comprehensive (Table  2 ). Overall, most of the studies containing macro-level KT TMFs published until 2010 either do not fully acknowledge contextual factors or provide generic terms such as cultural, political and economic for brief description (9 out of 10; 90%).

Studies published after 2010 demonstrate a notable geographical shift, with a greater emphasis on low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). By taking the adoption of the directly observed treatment, short-course (DOTS) strategy for tuberculosis control in Mexico as a case study, Bissell et al. [ 56 ] examine policy transfer to Mexico and its relevance to operational research efforts and suggest a model for analysis of health policy transfer. The model interprets context as health system, including political, economic, social, cultural and technological features. Focusing on HIV/AIDS in India, Tran et al. [ 57 ] explore KT by considering various forms of evidence beyond scientific evidence, such as best practices derived from programme experience and disseminated through personal communication. Their proposed framework aims to offer an analytical tool for understanding how evidence-based influence is exerted. In their framework, no information is available on context. Next, Bertone et al. [ 58 ] report on the effectiveness of Communities of Practice (CoPs) in African countries and present a conceptual framework for analysing and assessing transnational CoPs in health policy. The framework organises the key elements of CoPs, linking available resources, knowledge management activities, policy and practice changes, and improvements in health outcomes. Context is only briefly included in this framework.

Some other studies include both European and global perspectives. The publication from Timotijevic et al. from 2013 [ 59 ] introduces an epistemological framework that examines the considerations influencing the policy-making process, with a specific focus on micronutrient requirements in Europe. They present case studies from several European countries, highlighting the relevance of the framework in understanding the policy context related to micronutrients. Context is interpreted in this framework as global trends, data, media, broader consumer beliefs, ethical considerations, and wider social, legal, political, and economic environment. Next, funded by the European Union, the study by Onwujekwe et al. [ 60 ] examines the role of different types of evidence in health policy development in Nigeria. Although they cover the factors related to policy actors in their framework for assessing the role of evidence in policy development, they provide no information on context. Moreover, Redman et al. [ 61 ] present the SPIRIT Action Framework, which aims to enhance the use of research in policymaking. Context is interpreted in this framework as policy influences, i.e. public opinion, media, economic climate, legislative/policy infrastructure, political ideology and priorities, stakeholder interests, expert advice, and resources. From a global perspective, Spicer et al. [ 62 ] explore the contextual factors that influenced the scale-up of donor-funded maternal and newborn health innovations in Ethiopia, India and Nigeria, highlighting the importance of context in assessing and adapting innovations. Their suggested contextual factors influencing government decisions to accept, adopt and finance innovations at scale are relatively comprehensive (Table  2 ).

In terms of publication frequency, the pinnacle of reviewed KT studies was in 2017. Among six studies published in 2017, four lack details about context in their KT conceptualisations and one study touches on context very briefly. Bragge et al. [ 5 ] brought for their study an international terminology working group together to develop a simplified framework of interventions to integrate evidence into health practices, systems, and policies, named as the Aims, Ingredients, Mechanism, Delivery framework, albeit without providing details on contextual factors. Second, Mulvale et al. [ 63 ] present a conceptual framework that explores the impact of policy dialogues on policy development, illustrating how these dialogues can influence different stages of the policy cycle. Similar to the previous one, this study too, lacks information on context. In a systematic review, Sarkies et al. [ 64 ] evaluate the effectiveness of research implementation strategies in promoting evidence-informed policy decisions in healthcare. The study explores the factors associated with effective strategies and their inter-relationship, yet without further information on context. Fourth, Houngbo et al. [ 65 ] focus on the development of a strategy to implement a good governance model for health technology management in the public health sector, drawing from their experience in Benin. They outline a six-phase model that includes preparatory analysis, stakeholder identification and problem analysis, shared analysis and visioning, development of policy instruments for pilot testing, policy development and validation, and policy implementation and evaluation. They provide no information about context in their model. Fifth, Mwendera et al. [ 66 ] present a framework for improving the use of malaria research in policy development in Malawi, which was developed based on case studies exploring the policymaking process, the use of local malaria research, and assessing facilitators and barriers to research utilisation. Contextual setting is considered as Ministry of Health (MoH) with political set up, leadership system within the MoH, government policies and cultural set up. In contrast to these five studies, Ellen et al. [ 67 ] present a relatively comprehensive framework to support evidence-informed policymaking in ageing and health. The framework includes thought-provoking questions to discover contextual factors (Table  2 ).

Continuing the trend, studies published after 2017 focus increasingly on LMICs. In their embedded case study, Ongolo-Zogo et al. [ 68 ] examine the influence of two Knowledge Translation Platforms (KTPs) on policy decisions to achieve the health millennium development goals in Cameroon and Uganda. It explores how these KTPs influenced policy through interactions within policy issue networks, engagement with interest groups, and the promotion of evidence-supported ideas, ultimately shaping the overall policy climate for evidence-informed health system policymaking. Contextual factors are thereby interpreted as institutions (structures, legacies, policy networks), interests, ideas (values, research evidence) and external factors (reports, commitments). Focusing on the ‘Global South’, Plamondon et al. [ 69 ] suggest blending integrated knowledge translation with global health governance as an approach for strengthening leadership for health equity action. In terms of contextual factors, they include some information such as adapting knowledge to local context, consideration of the composition of non-traditional actors, such as civil society and private sector, in governance bodies and guidance for meaningful engagement between actors, particularly in shared governance models. Further, Vincenten et al. [ 70 ] propose a conceptual model to enhance understanding of interlinking factors that influence the evidence implementation process. Their evidence implementation model for public health systems refers to ‘context setting’, albeit without providing further detail.

Similarly, the study by Motani et al. from 2019 [ 71 ] assesses the outcomes and lessons learned from the EVIDENT partnership that focused on knowledge management for evidence-informed decision-making in nutrition and health in Africa. Although they mention ‘contextualising evidence’ in their conceptual framework, information about context is lacking. Focusing on Latin America and the Caribbean, Varallyay et al. [ 72 ] introduce a conceptual framework for evaluating embedded implementation research in various contexts. The framework outlines key stages of evidence-informed decision-making and provides guidance on assessing embeddedness and critical contextual factors. Compared to others, their conceptual framework provides a relatively comprehensive elaboration on contextual factors. In addition, among all the studies reviewed, Leonard et al. [ 73 ] present an exceptionally comprehensive analysis, where they identify the facilitators and barriers to the sustainable implementation of evidence-based health innovations in LMICs. Through a systematic literature review, they scrutinise 79 studies and categorise the identified barriers and facilitators into seven groups: context, innovation, relations and networks, institutions, knowledge, actors, and resources. The first one, context, contains rich information that could be seen in Table  2 .

Continuing from LMICs, Votruba et al. [ 74 ] present in their study the EVITA (EVIdence To Agenda setting) conceptual framework for mental health research-policy interrelationships in LMICs with some information about context, detailed as external influences and political context. In a follow-up study, they offer an updated framework for understanding evidence-based mental health policy agenda-setting [ 75 ]. In their revised framework, context is interpreted as external context and policy sphere, encompassing policy agenda, window of opportunity, political will and key individuals. Lastly, to develop a comprehensive monitoring and evaluation framework for evidence-to-policy networks, Kuchenmüller et al. [ 76 ] present the EVIPNet Europe Theory of Change and interpret contextual factors for evidence-informed policymaking as political, economic, logistic and administrative. Overall, it can be concluded that studies presenting macro-level KT TMFs from 2011 until 2022 focus mainly on LMICs (15 out of 22; close to 70%) and the majority of them were funded by international (development) organisations, the European Commission and global health donor agencies. An overwhelming number of studies among them (19 out of 22; close to 90%) provide either no information on contextual details or these were included only partly with some generic terms in KT TMFs.

Our systematic scoping review suggests that the approach of KT, which has evolved from evidence-based medicine to evidence-informed policymaking, tends to remain closely tied to its clinical origins when developing TMFs. In other words, macro-level KT TMFs place greater emphasis on the (public) health issue at hand rather than considering the broader decision-making context, a viewpoint shared by other scholars as well [ 30 ]. One reason could be that in the early stages of KT TMFs, the emphasis primarily focused on implementing evidence-based practices within clinical settings. At that time, the spotlight was mostly on content, including aspects like clinical studies, checklists and guidelines serving as the evidence base. In those meso-level KT TMFs, a detailed description of context, i.e. the overall environment in which these practices should be implemented, might have been deemed less necessary, given that healthcare organisations, such as hospitals to implement medical guidelines or surgical safety checklists, show similar characteristics globally.

However, as the scope of KT TMFs continues to expand to include the influence on health policies, a deeper understanding of context-specific factors within different jurisdictions and the dynamics of the policy process is becoming increasingly crucial. This is even more important for KT scholars aiming to conceptualise large-scale changes, as described in KT Tier 5, which necessitate a thorough understanding of targeted behaviours within societies. As the complexity of interventions increases due to the growing number of stakeholders either affecting or being affected by them, the interventions are surrounded by a more intricate web of attitudes, incentives, relationships, rules of engagement and spheres of influence [ 7 ]. The persisting emphasis on content over context in the evolving field of KT may oversimplify the complex process of using evidence in policymaking and understanding the society [ 77 ]. Some scholars argue that this common observation in public health can be attributed to the dominance of experts primarily from medical sciences [ 78 , 79 , 80 ]. Our study confirms the potential limitation of not incorporating insights from political science and public policy studies, which can lead to what is often termed a ‘naïve’ conceptualisation of evidence-to-policy schemes [ 15 , 16 , 17 ]. It is therefore strongly encouraged that the emerging macro-level KT concepts draw on political science and public administration if KT scholars intend to effectively communicate new ideas to policymakers, with the aim of prompting their action or response. We summarised our findings into three points.

Firstly, KT scholars may want to identify and pinpoint exactly where a change should occur within the policy process. The main confusion that we observed in the KT literature arises from a lack of understanding of how public policies are made. Notably, the term ‘evidence-informed policymaking’ can refer to any stage of the policy cycle, spanning from agenda-setting to policy formulation, adoption, implementation and evaluation. Understanding these steps will allow researchers to refine their language when advocating for policy changes across various jurisdictions; for instance, the word ‘implementation’ is often inappropriately used in KT literature. As commonly known, at the macro-level, public policies take the form of legislation, law-making and regulation, thereby shaping the practices or policies to be implemented at the meso- and micro-levels [ 81 ]. In other words, the process of using specific knowledge to influence health policies, however evidence-based it might be, falls mostly under the responsibility and jurisdiction of sovereign states. For this reason, macro-level KT TMFs should reflect the importance of understanding the policy context and the complexities associated with policymaking, rather than suggesting flawed or unrealistic top-down ‘implementation’ strategies in countries by foregrounding the content, or the (public) health issue at hand.

Our second observation from this systematic scoping review points towards a selective perception among researchers when reporting on policy interventions. Research on KT does not solely exist due to the perceived gap between scientific evidence and policy but also because of the pressures the organisations or researchers face in being accountable to their funding sources, ensuring the continuity of financial support for their activities and claiming output legitimacy to change public policies [ 8 ]. This situation indirectly compels researchers working to influence health policies in the field to provide ‘evidence-based’ feedback on the success of their projects to donors [ 82 ]. In doing so, researchers may overly emphasise the content of the policy intervention in their reporting to secure further funding, while they underemphasis the contextual factors. These factors, often perceived as a given, might actually be the primary facilitators of their success. Such a lack of transparency regarding the definition of context is particularly visible in the field of global health, where LMICs often rely on external donors. It is important to note that this statement is not intended as a negative critique of their missions or an evaluation of health outcomes in countries following such missions. Rather, it seeks to explain the underlying reason why researchers, particularly those reliant on donors in LMICs, prioritise promoting the concept of KT from a technical standpoint, giving less attention to contextual factors in their reasoning.

Lastly, and connected to the previous point, it is our observation that the majority of macro-level KT TMFs fail to give adequate consideration to both power dynamics in countries (internal vs. external influences) and the actual role that government plays in public policies. Notably, although good policymaking entails an honest effort to use the best available evidence, the belief that this will completely negate the role of power and politics in decision-making is a technocratic illusion [ 83 ]. Among the studies reviewed, the framework put forth by Leonard et al. [ 73 ] offers the most comprehensive understanding of context and includes a broad range of factors (such as political, social, and economic) discovered also in other reviewed studies. Moreover, the framework, developed through an extensive systematic review, offers a more in-depth exploration of these contextual factors than merely listing them as a set of keywords. Indeed, within the domains of political science and public policy, such factors shaping health policies have received considerable scholarly attention for decades. To define what context entails, Walt refers in her book ‘Health Policy: An Introduction to Process and Power’ [ 84 ] to the work of Leichter from 1979 [ 85 ], who provides a scheme for analysing public policy. This includes i) situational factors, which are transient, impermanent, or idiosyncratic; ii) structural factors, which are relatively unchanging elements of the society and polity; iii) cultural factors, which are value commitments of groups; and iv) environmental factors, which are events, structures and values that exist outside the boundaries of a political system and influence decisions within it. His detailed sub-categories for context can be found in Table  3 . This flexible public policy framework may offer KT researchers a valuable approach to understanding contextual factors and provide some guidance to define the keywords to focus on. Scholars can adapt this framework to suit a wide range of KT topics, creating more context-sensitive and comprehensive KT TMFs.

Admittedly, our study has certain limitations. Despite choosing one of the most comprehensive bibliographic databases for our systematic scoping review, which includes materials from biomedicine, allied health fields, biological and physical sciences, humanities, and information science in relation to medicine and healthcare, we acknowledge that we may have missed relevant articles indexed in other databases. Hence, exclusively using Ovid/MEDLINE due to resource constraints may have narrowed the scope and diversity of scholarly literature examined in this study. Second, our review was limited to peer-reviewed publications in English and German. Future studies could extend our findings by examining the extent to which contextual factors are detailed in macro-level KT TMFs published in grey literature and in different languages. Given the abundance of KT reports, working papers or policy briefs published by IOs and development agencies, such an endeavour could enrich our findings and either support or challenge our conclusions. Nonetheless, to our knowledge, this study represents the first systematic review and critical appraisal of emerging knowledge-to-policy concepts, also known as macro-level KT TMFs. It successfully blends insights from both biomedical and public policy disciplines, and could serve as a roadmap for future research.

The translation of knowledge to policymakers involves more than technical skills commonly associated with (bio-)medical sciences, such as creating evidence-based guidelines or clinical checklists. Instead, evidence-informed policymaking reflects an ambition to engage in the political dimensions of states. Therefore, the evolving KT concepts addressing health policies should be seen as a political decision-making process, rather than a purely analytical one, as is the case with evidence-based medicine. To better understand the influence of power dynamics and governance structures in policymaking, we suggest that future macro-level KT TMFs draw on insights from political science and public administration. Collaborative, interdisciplinary research initiatives could be undertaken to bridge the gap between these fields. Technocratic KT TMFs that overlook contextual factors risk propagating misconceptions in academic circles about how health policies are made, as they become increasingly influential over time. Research, the systematic pursuit of knowledge, is neither inherently good nor bad; it can be sought after, used or misused, like any other tool in policymaking. What is needed in the KT discourse is not another generic call for ‘research-to-action’ but rather an understanding of the dividing line between research-to- clinical -action and research-to- political -action.

Availability of data and materials

Available upon reasonable request.

WHO. Bridging the ‘Know-Do’ Gap: Meeting on Knowledge Translation in Global Health : 10–12 October 2005 World Health Organization Geneva, Switzerland [Internet]. 2005. https://www.measureevaluation.org/resources/training/capacity-building-resources/high-impact-research-training-curricula/bridging-the-know-do-gap.pdf

Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovations. 3rd ed. New York: Free Press; 1983.

Google Scholar  

Greenhalgh T, Wieringa S. Is it time to drop the ‘knowledge translation’ metaphor? A critical literature review. J R Soc Med. 2011;104(12):501–9.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Green LW, Ottoson JM, García C, Hiatt RA. Diffusion theory and knowledge dissemination, utilization, and integration in public health. Annu Rev Public Health. 2009;30(1):151–74.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Bragge P, Grimshaw JM, Lokker C, Colquhoun H, Albrecht L, Baron J, et al. AIMD—a validated, simplified framework of interventions to promote and integrate evidence into health practices, systems, and policies. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017;17(1):38.

Zarbin M. What Constitutes Translational Research? Implications for the Scope of Translational Vision Science and Technology. Transl Vis Sci Technol 2020;9(8).

Hassmiller Lich K, Frerichs L, Fishbein D, Bobashev G, Pentz MA. Translating research into prevention of high-risk behaviors in the presence of complex systems: definitions and systems frameworks. Transl Behav Med. 2016;6(1):17–31.

Tetroe JM, Graham ID, Foy R, Robinson N, Eccles MP, Wensing M, et al. Health research funding agencies’ support and promotion of knowledge translation: an international study. Milbank Q. 2008;86(1):125–55.

Eccles MP, Mittman BS. Welcome to Implementation Science. Implement Sci. 2006;1(1):1.

Article   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Rychetnik L, Bauman A, Laws R, King L, Rissel C, Nutbeam D, et al. Translating research for evidence-based public health: key concepts and future directions. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2012;66(12):1187–92.

Votruba N, Ziemann A, Grant J, Thornicroft G. A systematic review of frameworks for the interrelationships of mental health evidence and policy in low- and middle-income countries. Health Res Policy Syst. 2018;16(1):85.

Delnord M, Tille F, Abboud LA, Ivankovic D, Van Oyen H. How can we monitor the impact of national health information systems? Results from a scoping review. Eur J Public Health. 2020;30(4):648–59.

Malterud K, Bjelland AK, Elvbakken KT. Evidence-based medicine—an appropriate tool for evidence-based health policy? A case study from Norway. Health Res Policy Syst. 2016;14(1):15.

Borst RAJ, Kok MO, O’Shea AJ, Pokhrel S, Jones TH, Boaz A. Envisioning and shaping translation of knowledge into action: a comparative case-study of stakeholder engagement in the development of a European tobacco control tool. Health Policy. 2019;123(10):917–23.

Liverani M, Hawkins B, Parkhurst JO. Political and institutional influences on the use of evidence in public health policy: a systematic review. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(10): e77404.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Cairney P. The politics of evidence-based policy making, 1st ed. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK: Imprint: Palgrave Pivot, Palgrave Macmillan; 2016.

Parkhurst J. The Politics of Evidence: From evidence-based policy to the good governance of evidence [Internet]. Routledge; 2016. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781315675008

Cairney P, Oliver K. Evidence-based policymaking is not like evidence-based medicine, so how far should you go to bridge the divide between evidence and policy? Health Res Policy Syst. 2017;15(1):35.

Verboom B, Baumann A. Mapping the Qualitative Evidence Base on the Use of Research Evidence in Health Policy-Making: A Systematic Review. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2020;16.

Ward V, House A, Hamer S. Developing a framework for transferring knowledge into action: a thematic analysis of the literature. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2009;14(3):156–64.

Swinburn B, Gill T, Kumanyika S. Obesity prevention: a proposed framework for translating evidence into action. Obes Rev. 2005;6(1):23–33.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Damschroder LJ. Clarity out of chaos: Use of theory in implementation research. Psychiatry Res. 2020;283: 112461.

Birken SA, Rohweder CL, Powell BJ, Shea CM, Scott J, Leeman J, et al. T-CaST: an implementation theory comparison and selection tool. Implement Sci. 2018;13(1):143.

Nilsen P. Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks. Implement Sci. 2015;10(1):53.

Rapport F, Clay-Williams R, Churruca K, Shih P, Hogden A, Braithwaite J. The struggle of translating science into action: foundational concepts of implementation science. J Eval Clin Pract. 2018;24(1):117–26.

Hagenaars LL, Jeurissen PPT, Klazinga NS. The taxation of unhealthy energy-dense foods (EDFs) and sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs): An overview of patterns observed in the policy content and policy context of 13 case studies. Health Policy. 2017;121(8):887–94.

Sheikh K, Gilson L, Agyepong IA, Hanson K, Ssengooba F, Bennett S. Building the field of health policy and systems research: framing the questions. PLOS Med. 2011;8(8): e1001073.

Tran NT, Hyder AA, Kulanthayan S, Singh S, Umar RSR. Engaging policy makers in road safety research in Malaysia: a theoretical and contextual analysis. Health Policy. 2009;90(1):58–65.

Walt G, Gilson L. Reforming the health sector in developing countries: the central role of policy analysis. Health Policy Plan. 1994;9(4):353–70.

Dobrow MJ, Goel V, Upshur REG. Evidence-based health policy: context and utilisation. Soc Sci Med. 2004;58(1):207–17.

Barnfield A, Savolainen N, Lounamaa A. Health Promotion Interventions: Lessons from the Transfer of Good Practices in CHRODIS-PLUS. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(4).

van de Goor I, Hämäläinen RM, Syed A, Juel Lau C, Sandu P, Spitters H, et al. Determinants of evidence use in public health policy making: results from a study across six EU countries. Health Policy Amst Neth. 2017;121(3):273–81.

Article   Google Scholar  

Ornstein JT, Hammond RA, Padek M, Mazzucca S, Brownson RC. Rugged landscapes: complexity and implementation science. Implement Sci. 2020;15(1):85.

Seward N, Hanlon C, Hinrichs-Kraples S, Lund C, Murdoch J, Taylor Salisbury T, et al. A guide to systems-level, participatory, theory-informed implementation research in global health. BMJ Glob Health. 2021;6(12): e005365.

Pfadenhauer LM, Gerhardus A, Mozygemba K, Lysdahl KB, Booth A, Hofmann B, et al. Making sense of complexity in context and implementation: the Context and Implementation of Complex Interventions (CICI) framework. Implement Sci. 2017;12(1):21.

Rogers L, De Brún A, McAuliffe E. Defining and assessing context in healthcare implementation studies: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020;20(1):591.

Nilsen P, Bernhardsson S. Context matters in implementation science: a scoping review of determinant frameworks that describe contextual determinants for implementation outcomes. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19(1):189.

Arksey H, O’Malley L, Baldwin S, Harris J, Mason A, Golder S. Literature review report: services to support carers of people with mental health problems. 2002;182.

Tabak RG, Khoong EC, Chambers D, Brownson RC. Bridging research and practice. Am J Prev Med. 2012;43(3):337–50.

O’Donovan MA, McCallion P, McCarron M, Lynch L, Mannan H, Byrne E. A narrative synthesis scoping review of life course domains within health service utilisation frameworks. HRB Open Res. 2019.

Michie S, Johnston M, Abraham C, Lawton R, Parker D, Walker A, et al. Making psychological theory useful for implementing evidence based practice: a consensus approach. Qual Saf Health Care. 2005;14(1):26–33.

Bate P, Robert G, Fulop N, Øvretviet J, Dixon-Woods M. Perspectives on context: a collection of essays considering the role of context in successful quality improvement [Internet]. 2014. https://www.health.org.uk/sites/default/files/PerspectivesOnContext_fullversion.pdf

Ziemann A, Brown L, Sadler E, Ocloo J, Boaz A, Sandall J. Influence of external contextual factors on the implementation of health and social care interventions into practice within or across countries—a protocol for a ‘best fit’ framework synthesis. Syst Rev. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-019-1180-8 .

Strifler L, Cardoso R, McGowan J, Cogo E, Nincic V, Khan PA, et al. Scoping review identifies significant number of knowledge translation theories, models, and frameworks with limited use. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;100:92–102.

Esmail R, Hanson HM, Holroyd-Leduc J, Brown S, Strifler L, Straus SE, et al. A scoping review of full-spectrum knowledge translation theories, models, and frameworks. Implement Sci. 2020;15(1):11.

Jacobson N, Butterill D, Goering P. Development of a framework for knowledge translation: understanding user context. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2003;8(2):94–9.

Lehoux P, Denis JL, Tailliez S, Hivon M. Dissemination of health technology assessments: identifying the visions guiding an evolving policy innovation in Canada. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2005;30(4):603–42.

Parliament of Canada. Government Bill (House of Commons) C-13 (36–2) - Royal Assent - Canadian Institutes of Health Research Act [Internet]. https://parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/36-2/bill/C-13/royal-assent/page-31 . Accessed 1 Apr 2023.

Straus SE, Tetroe J, Graham I. Defining knowledge translation. CMAJ Can Med Assoc J. 2009;181(3–4):165–8.

Ashford L. Creating windows of opportunity for policy change: incorporating evidence into decentralized planning in Kenya. Bull World Health Organ. 2006;84(8):669–72.

Bauman AE, Nelson DE, Pratt M, Matsudo V, Schoeppe S. Dissemination of physical activity evidence, programs, policies, and surveillance in the international public health arena. Am J Prev Med. 2006;31(4):57–65.

Gold M. Pathways to the use of health services research in policy. Health Serv Res. 2009;44(4):1111–36.

Dhonukshe-Rutten RAM, Timotijevic L, Cavelaars AEJM, Raats MM, de Wit LS, Doets EL, et al. European micronutrient recommendations aligned: a general framework developed by EURRECA. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2010;64(2):S2-10.

Ir P, Bigdeli M, Meessen B, Van Damme W. Translating knowledge into policy and action to promote health equity: The Health Equity Fund policy process in Cambodia 2000–2008. Health Policy. 2010;96(3):200–9.

Atun R, de Jongh T, Secci F, Ohiri K, Adeyi O. Integration of targeted health interventions into health systems: a conceptual framework for analysis. Health Policy Plan. 2010;25(2):104–11.

Bissell K, Lee K, Freeman R. Analysing policy transfer: perspectives for operational research. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis Off J Int Union Tuberc Lung Dis. 2011;15(9).

Tran NT, Bennett SC, Bishnu R, Singh S. Analyzing the sources and nature of influence: how the Avahan program used evidence to influence HIV/AIDS prevention policy in India. Implement Sci. 2013;8(1):44.

Bertone MP, Meessen B, Clarysse G, Hercot D, Kelley A, Kafando Y, et al. Assessing communities of practice in health policy: a conceptual framework as a first step towards empirical research. Health Res Policy Syst. 2013;11(1):39.

Timotijevic L, Brown KA, Lähteenmäki L, de Wit L, Sonne AM, Ruprich J, et al. EURRECA—a framework for considering evidence in public health nutrition policy development. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2013;53(10):1124–34.

Onwujekwe O, Uguru N, Russo G, Etiaba E, Mbachu C, Mirzoev T, et al. Role and use of evidence in policymaking: an analysis of case studies from the health sector in Nigeria. Health Res Policy Syst. 2015;13(1):46.

Redman S, Turner T, Davies H, Williamson A, Haynes A, Brennan S, et al. The SPIRIT action framework: a structured approach to selecting and testing strategies to increase the use of research in policy. Soc Sci Med. 2015;136–137:147–55.

Spicer N, Berhanu D, Bhattacharya D, Tilley-Gyado RD, Gautham M, Schellenberg J, et al. ‘The stars seem aligned’: a qualitative study to understand the effects of context on scale-up of maternal and newborn health innovations in Ethiopia, India and Nigeria. Glob Health. 2016;12(1):75.

Mulvale G, McRae SA, Milicic S. Teasing apart “the tangled web” of influence of policy dialogues: lessons from a case study of dialogues about healthcare reform options for Canada. Implement Sci IS. 2017;12.

Sarkies MN, Bowles KA, Skinner EH, Haas R, Lane H, Haines TP. The effectiveness of research implementation strategies for promoting evidence-informed policy and management decisions in healthcare: a systematic review. Implement Sci. 2017;12(1):132.

Houngbo PTh, Coleman HLS, Zweekhorst M, De Cock Buning TJ, Medenou D, Bunders JFG. A Model for Good Governance of Healthcare Technology Management in the Public Sector: Learning from Evidence-Informed Policy Development and Implementation in Benin. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(1):e0168842.

Mwendera C, de Jager C, Longwe H, Hongoro C, Phiri K, Mutero CM. Development of a framework to improve the utilisation of malaria research for policy development in Malawi. Health Res Policy Syst. 2017;15(1):97.

Ellen ME, Panisset U, de AraujoCarvalho I, Goodwin J, Beard J. A knowledge translation framework on ageing and health. Health Policy. 2017;121(3):282–91.

Ongolo-Zogo P, Lavis JN, Tomson G, Sewankambo NK. Assessing the influence of knowledge translation platforms on health system policy processes to achieve the health millennium development goals in Cameroon and Uganda: a comparative case study. Health Policy Plan. 2018;33(4):539–54.

Plamondon KM, Pemberton J. Blending integrated knowledge translation with global health governance: an approach for advancing action on a wicked problem. Health Res Policy Syst. 2019;17(1):24.

Vincenten J, MacKay JM, Schröder-Bäck P, Schloemer T, Brand H. Factors influencing implementation of evidence-based interventions in public health systems—a model. Cent Eur J Public Health. 2019;27(3):198–203.

Motani P, Van de Walle A, Aryeetey R, Verstraeten R. Lessons learned from Evidence-Informed Decision-Making in Nutrition & Health (EVIDENT) in Africa: a project evaluation. Health Res Policy Syst. 2019;17(1):12.

Varallyay NI, Langlois EV, Tran N, Elias V, Reveiz L. Health system decision-makers at the helm of implementation research: development of a framework to evaluate the processes and effectiveness of embedded approaches. Health Res Policy Syst. 2020;18(1):64.

Leonard E, de Kock I, Bam W. Barriers and facilitators to implementing evidence-based health innovations in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic literature review. Eval Program Plann. 2020;82: 101832.

Votruba N, Grant J, Thornicroft G. The EVITA framework for evidence-based mental health policy agenda setting in low- and middle-income countries. Health Policy Plan. 2020;35(4):424–39.

Votruba N, Grant J, Thornicroft G. EVITA 2.0, an updated framework for understanding evidence-based mental health policy agenda-setting: tested and informed by key informant interviews in a multilevel comparative case study. Health Res Policy Syst. 2021;19(1):35.

Kuchenmüller T, Chapman E, Takahashi R, Lester L, Reinap M, Ellen M, et al. A comprehensive monitoring and evaluation framework for evidence to policy networks. Eval Program Plann. 2022;91: 102053.

Ettelt S. The politics of evidence use in health policy making in Germany—the case of regulating hospital minimum volumes. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2017;42(3):513–38.

Greer SL, Bekker M, de Leeuw E, Wismar M, Helderman JK, Ribeiro S, et al. Policy, politics and public health. Eur J Public Health. 2017;27(suppl 4):40–3.

Fafard P, Cassola A. Public health and political science: challenges and opportunities for a productive partnership. Public Health. 2020;186:107–9.

Löblová O. Epistemic communities and experts in health policy-making. Eur J Public Health. 2018;28(suppl 3):7–10.

Maddalena V. Evidence-Based Decision-Making 8: Health Policy, a Primer for Researchers. In: Parfrey PS, Barrett BJ, editors. Clinical Epidemiology: Practice and Methods. New York, NY: Springer; 2015. (Methods in Molecular Biology).

Louis M, Maertens L. Why international organizations hate politics - Depoliticizing the world [Internet]. London and New York: Routledge; 2021. (Global Institutions). https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/47578/1/9780429883279.pdf

Hassel A, Wegrich K. How to do public policy. 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2022.

Book   Google Scholar  

Walt G. Health policy: an introduction to process and power. 7th ed. Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press; 2004.

Leichter HM. A comparative approach to policy analysis: health care policy in four nations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1979.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of International Health, Care and Public Health Research Institute – CAPHRI, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands

Tugce Schmitt, Katarzyna Czabanowska & Peter Schröder-Bäck

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

TS: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing—Original Draft; KC: Writing—Review & Editing; PSB: Validation, Formal analysis, Writing—Review & Editing, Supervision.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tugce Schmitt .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate, consent for publication, competing interests, additional information, publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Schmitt, T., Czabanowska, K. & Schröder-Bäck, P. What is context in knowledge translation? Results of a systematic scoping review. Health Res Policy Sys 22 , 52 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-024-01143-5

Download citation

Received : 26 June 2023

Accepted : 11 April 2024

Published : 29 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-024-01143-5

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Knowledge Translation
• Evidence-informed policymaking
• Health systems

Health Research Policy and Systems

ISSN: 1478-4505

• Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
• General enquiries: [email protected]