Knowledge mobilisation aims to increase the overall impact of research by making research accessible, by creating social interactions through purposeful connections between researchers and end users, and facilitating deliberative dialogue that can increase mutual understanding and improve the relevance and applicability of research. This, in turn, maximises the impact of the research through an increased likelihood
it will be used in public policy and professional practice.

It is clear that effective knowledge-to-action on complex problems requires individuals at all levels to lead change efforts. Central leadership responsibilities include development of shared vision and values, and creation and maintenance of organisational cultures that support continuous learning and embrace change.

The majority of challenges that iKT (i.e. Integrated Knowledge Translation) teams experience can be overcome through patience and creativity. Future research on this topic should include detailed descriptions of how partnerships are built and maintained, and how challenges such as identifying the "right" KUs (knowledge users) and navigating conflicting priorities are addressed.

The most often mentioned facilitators of the use of evidence are still reported to be relationships, contact and collaboration, availability and access to research, and relevant, reliable and clear research findings. A lack of relevant, reliable and clear research findings, and poor availability and access to research, are the most often mentioned barriers to policymakers' use of research.

Det er ikke tilstrækkeligt at udvikle løsninger i forskningsverdenen for derefter at overføre dem til samfundet. Derimod kræver komplekse problemer samarbejde og samskabelse, der involverer aktører fra både forskning og praksis.

Forskning spreder sig ikke gennem simpel "overførsel" af viden, men kræver aktivt samarbejde, interaktion og fælles missioner.

There is often a disconnection between the creation of evidence and its use in policy and practice. Cross-sectoral, multidisciplinary partnership research, founded on shared governance and coproduction, is considered to be one of the most effective means of overcoming this research-policy-practice disconnect.

The research in health care counts for little unless the findings and insights that emerge are shared, understood and used. The past two decades have seen growing attention paid to these issues, with theoretical development, empirical study and a good deal of investment in infrastructure and activity to
support "research use" or, more broadly, "knowledge mobilisation".

It is likely that the quality and effectiveness of health care could be significantly enhanced if services were aligned more closely with the available research evidence. Improvements could be seen in both the nature and types of services and treatments provided and the processes by which these services are
delivered.

Knowledge mobilisation partnerships are increasingly recognised as a vital strategy in efforts to strengthen research-informed policy and practice.

It has been argued that the co-production of knowledge results in "the best and most lasting influences
of research" and has the potential to bring about systemic change.

Cross-sector knowledge mobilisation may be especially helpful for addressing "wicked problems" such as chronic disease, where there are multiple, interconnected and contextually contingent causes, disputed and variable evidence, competing interests, and where solutions do not appear to be evident or fully attainable.

There is a growing emphasis worldwide on the use of knowledge mobilization (KMb) to improve policies and practices with the latest research evidence. This emphasis calls upon knowledge producers (e.g., university researchers) to produce more relevant evidence, and knowledge users (e.g., practitioners) to access and apply evidence. However, doing KMb can be challenging for these groups without effective support and training.

[I]f we do not find ways to overcome the systemic barriers [to mobilizing knowledge], our discipline risks leaving so much scholarly evidence unimplemented in the world of politics. This risk has far-reaching, harmful implications for avoidable morbidity, avoidable mortality, and life expectancy.

Despite the fast evolution and adoption of extra-academic impact, the research reward cycle as it is currently conceptualized provides little recognition of these new modes of research interaction and engagement. While official institutional communication on the role of science and scientists often highlights the importance of public engagement, outreach, and dissemination, it is achievements related to publications, teaching, and administration which remain crucial for one’s career progression (with publications and grants in particular being associated with academic excellence).

The political imperative to make public services more evidence based has contributed to the growth in the past two decades of both research and practice in the field of knowledge mobilization: the range of approaches to encourage the creation, sharing and use of research-informed knowledge alongside other forms of knowledge. Paradoxically the growth of the field has made the challenge of encouraging research use much more complex and uncertain, and the roles of knowledge mobilizers much more diverse and demanding.

Calls for stronger links between research evidence and policy and practice have become commonplace across nearly all fields of study in the past 15 years.

The central role of research mediators of various kinds needs much more exploration to learn about the most effective ways to connect research to practice in organisations.

Research on improving healthcare and knowledge implementation requires a higher appreciation of the field in the academic and health community, and alignment of resources and power in institutions accordingly.

Developing an implementation support workforce will require a deeper understanding of [this workforce's] lived experience to prevent repeated use of strategies observed to be unsuccessful by those most proximal to the work. The pathways for implementation practice in this study highlight impressive leaps forward in the field of implementation over the last 15 years and speaks to the importance of the professionals leading change efforts in this growth.

Linking science with action affords a prime opportunity to leverage greater societal impact from research and increase the use of evidence in decision-making. Success in these areas depends critically upon processes of producing and mobilizing knowledge, as well as supporting and making decisions.

In recent years, there has been a growing interest in using co-creation approaches, with academics and partners working together to create research and interventions to achieve impact. Action research typically starts with the question ‘how can we improve this situation?’ and then co-creates knowledge with and not on or for people. This approach contrasts with conventional approaches in which academics create knowledge and then disseminate it to users via conferences, reports etc. The co-creative approach involves a shift in academics’ thinking and approaches. The success of co-creation depends on the academic shifting from being self-focussed and independent to being other-focussed and interdependent.

Hundreds of billions of dollars are spent annually on research and development – with an estimated A$23.1 billion spent in 2018 in Australia alone. However, a consistent finding from clinical and health services research is that research is not translated into policy and practice in a timely manner. This resulting evidence-to-practice gap exposes patients to inappropriate care and unnecessary treatments, resulting in high costs and resource wastage. More broadly, policymakers and program managers report that research is often not timely, relevant or actionable, and opportunities to integrate research into decision making are missed.

When researchers engage in the process of bringing about societal impact to tackle local or global challenges important concerns arise: cultural, social and political values and institutions can be put at risk, transformed or even hampered if researchers lack awareness of how their ‘acting to impact’ influences the social world. With today’s strong focus on research impacts, addressing such ethical challenges has become urgent within in all fields of research involved in finding solutions to the challenges societies are facing.

[T]here remains a growing concern that misalignments persist between research being conducted and the issues faced by knowledge users, such as clinicians and health policy makers, who make decisions in the health care context. Integrated knowledge translation (IKT) is a collaborative research model that has shown promise in addressing these concerns. It takes advantage of the unique and shared competencies amongst researchers and knowledge users to ensure relevance of the research process and its outcomes.