The way health policies and practices have evolved is largely influenced by translational research, which uses various conceptual and theoretical frameworks to connect evidence with real-world applications. This scoping review had set out to map and to summarize the existing literature on the most used frameworks for turning research into practice and policy. Instead of providing definitive clinical recommendations, it focused on showcasing the current state of evidence to guide future research efforts. To conduct this review, a systematic search was carried out across seven databases, covering peer-reviewed articles, theses, dissertations, and academic literature in health and science. These studies were screened and analyzed following the guidelines set by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI). A total of 73 studies were reviewed, encompassing 58 distinct frameworks, with eight emerging as the most frequently applied: CFIR (Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research), ARCC Model (Advancing Research and Clinical practice through close Collaboration), KTA (Knowledge-to-Action) Framework, aSSKINg (Assessing risk, Skin assessment and care, Surface selection, keep moving, Incontinence management, Nutrition, and Giving information ) Framework, CATs (Critically Appraised Topics) Framework, Delphi Technique, HIRAID (History including Infection risk, Red flags, Assessment, Interventions, Diagnostics, communication, and reassessment) Framework, and MRC (Medical Research Council) Framework. The review pinpointed these eight frequently referenced frameworks that served as essential tools for implementing research-informed practices and policies; however, the successful application of these frameworks was affected by various contextual factors, such as the availability of resources, workforce capacity, professional skills, and the suitability of timing and setting. The findings revealed variations in framework orientation, context of application, and stakeholder engagement, highlighting the importance of adaptability, contextsensitivity, and co-design in effective evidence translation. Given the limited range of databases examined, it was suggested that future research should involve a wider and more diverse array of sources to bolster the evidence base and to improve the generalizability of the findings. The review called for greater methodological rigor in framework selection and use, as well as the development of decision-support tools to optimize translational outcomes.

Human ; Scoping Review