In most societies health professionals are highly trusted – partly because of the valued roles they play in promoting health and caring for the sick and partly because of the knowledge they have acquired over an extended period of time. Nursing, medicine and the allied health professions are “regulated” occupations, with established knowledge bases, patterns of practice and codes of ethics. To gain recognition (in most cases, to be registered or licensed) health professionals must demonstrate that they possess a specialised knowledge base, as well as having specific skills in delivering healthcare and a commitment to “being in touch” with new and emerging knowledge about health, illness and ways of helping people to achieve optimal health.

The rapid development of medical, nursing and health science over the past fifty years has, however, led to an enormous growth in knowledge. As a result, the expansion in the range of interventions and knowledge available to assist health professionals in their clinical decision making and to inform service users in making care choices is unprecedented. This burgeoning of knowledge has not, however, necessarily led to an increase in the availability of knowledge to policymakers and clinical practitioners. Many health professionals rely on what they learned in their initial professional training and may be uninformed about current scientific findings. As a result, researchers, policymakers and political leaders increasingly suggest that the need to constantly translate current knowledge into action at both the policy and practice levels is poorly addressed.

Knowledge translation is a process derived from the need to ensure that our best knowledge (that is, the best available evidence) is used in practice and involves the ongoing, iterative and interactive process of translating knowledge from research into clinical practice and policy through ethically sound application and complex interactions between research developers and end users of research (Pyra, 2003; Bowen, Martens & The Need to Know Team, 2005; Lang, Wyer & Haynes, 2007; Mitton, Adair, McKenzie, Patten & Waye Perry, 2007; Scott, Moga, Barton, Rashig, Schopflocher, Taenzer, Harstall & Alberta Ambassador Project Team, 2007).

Different terms have been used to describe this process, including knowledge dissemination, knowledge transfer, evidence translation, research uptake, translational research, knowledge-to-action, research use, evidence uptake, getting research into practice, research utilization, implementation science, innovation, dissemination and diffusion (Armstrong, Waters, Roberts, Oliver & Popay, 2006; Kerner, 2006; Straus, Graham & Mazmanian, 2006; Lang, et al. 2007; Tugwell, Santesso, O’Connor, Wilson & Effective Consumer Investigative Group, 2007; Tetroe, Graham, Foy, Robinson, Eccles, Wensing, Durieux, Legare, et al. 2009; Kitson, 2009), although knowledge translation is now the favoured term (Armstrong, et al. 2006).

The main principles of knowledge translation are the dissemination of research by researchers, the utilization of research by policymakers and clinicians, and the implementation of evidence
into policy and practice through the transfer of knowledge (Bowen, et al. 2005; Armstrong, et al. 2006). Knowledge translation strategies therefore require the communication of research findings in ways that influence decision making, produce effective and collaborative working relationships amongst all stakeholders (particularly decision makers and researchers), and ensure that the research is relevant to the intended consumers of that research (Bowen, et al. 2005).

Knowledge translation remains a somewhat indistinct term in the literature, and there exists varied definitions, outlined previously, which may refer to similar or very different processes (Tetroe, et al. 2008). Knowledge translation has been seen as the process from basic discovery (basic/laboratory science) to intervention development (clinical trials) (Kerner, 2006; Newton & Scott-Findlay, 2007), known as gap 1, translation 1 or T1; and development (proven interventions) to delivery (used in practice (Santesso & Tugwell, 2006; Newton & Scott-Findlay, 2007), known as gap 2, translation 2, T2 or the know-do gap (Kerner, 2006; Santesso & Tugwell, 2006). These gaps are two major obstacles in knowledge translation (Newton & Scott-Findlay, 2007).

Mode 1 and Mode 2 knowledge have been used to describe different ways of knowledge generation. Whereas ‘Mode 1 relates to the traditional paradigm of scientific discovery’ (Kitson 2009, p. 225), Mode 2 involves active involvement and collaboration of all stakeholders in terms of methodological development related to how to communicate knowledge and how to articulate the research questions. Mode 2 knowledge is seen as reflexive and transdisciplinary (Kitson, 2009).