Exploring methods for creating or adapting knowledge mobilization products for culturally and linguistically diverse audiences: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Connecting end-users to research evidence has the power to improve patient knowledge and inform health decision-making. Differences in the culture and language of the end users may shape the effectiveness of knowledge mobilization (KMb). This scoping review set out to understand current approaches and methods when creating or adapting KMb products for culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) audiences. Methods We searched 3 databases (Ovid Medline, CINAHL via EBSCOhost, PsychINFO) from 2011 until August 2023. We included any literature about KMb product creation or adaptation processes serving CALD communities. A primary reviewer screened all identified publications and a second reviewer screened publications excluded by the primary. Data were extracted using a standardized form by one reviewer and verified by a second reviewer. Studies were categorized by type of adaptations (‘surface’ and/or ‘deep’ structure) and mapped based on type of stakeholder engagement used in the research approach (i2S model), and end-user involvement (content, design, evaluation and dissemination) in KMb product creation or adaptation. Results Ten thousand two hundred ninety-nine unique titles and abstracts were reviewed, 670 full-text studies were retrieved and reviewed, and 78 studies were included in final data extraction and mapping. Twenty-four studies (31%) created or adapted exclusively text-based KMb products such as leaflets and pamphlets and 49 (63%) produced digital products such as videos (n = 16, 33%), mobile applications (n = 14, 29%), and eHealth websites (n = 7, 14%). Twenty-five studies (32%) reported following a framework or theory for their creation or adaptation efforts. Twenty-eight studies (36%) engaged stakeholders in the research approach. Nearly all (96%) involved end-users in creating or adapting the KMb products through involvement in content development (n = 64), design features (n = 52), evaluation (n = 44) and dissemination (n = 20). Thirty-two (41%) studies included reflections from the research teams on the processes for creating or adapting KMb products for CALD communities. Conclusion Included studies cited a variety of methods to create or adapt KMb products for CALD communities. Successful uptake of created or adapted KMb products was often the result of collaboration and involvement with end-users for more applicable, accessible and meaningful products. Further research developing guidance and best practices is needed to support the creation or adaptation of KMb products with CALD communities. Registration Protocol submitted to Open Science Framework on August 16, 2022 ( https://osf.io/9jcw4/ ).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.101 | 0.230 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.055 | 0.041 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".