Barwick M (2018) Hospital for Sick Children©

Knowledge Translation Plan Appraisal Tool (KT-PAT)©

Grant reviewers are often tasked with assessing the quality of a proposed knowledge translation (KT) plan within a research proposal. The KT Plan Appraisal Tool (KT-PAT) guides
the assessment of quality for a proposed KT plan. The intended users of the KT-PAT are grant reviewers but individuals may also find it useful to rate their own plan in a formative
sense, with a view towards improvement.
High quality KT plans follow a simple methodology, as outlined in the Knowledge Translation Planning Template© and illustrated in related e-learning modules. Users are instructed
to review the Knowledge Translation Planning Template© (KTPT) and the accompanying videos in advance of using the KT-PAT. Note that the KTPT and the KT-PAT pertain to
developing an overarching KT plan designed to ensure findings will be accessible and understandable to a range of knowledge users (KU) who will benefit from them in some way.
A KT plan is more general than an implementation plan which is specific to practice change and requires a more explicit methodology. For support on developing an
implementation plan, please visit The Implementation Game©. All noted resources can be found here: http://www.sickkids.ca/Learning/AbouttheInstitute/Programs/Knowledge-
Translation/index.html.

A quality KT plan is comprised of three main criteria:

1) Comprehensiveness: The plan covers the 13 elements described in the KTPT©. When a shorter plan is required or appropriate, include the minimum elements (*).
2) Alignment: KT involves making research evidence accessible and understandable to the relevant KUs. An Integrated KT (iKT) process involves research and KT co-development
with KUs throughout the research endeavour, whereas an End of Grant KT (EoG) process is less participatory and occurs when findings are known. Either way, KT planning
involves developing key main messages that are tailored to needs and preferences of relevant knowledge user (KU) audiences, and linked to a purpose or KT Goal (i.e., to build
awareness, share knowledge, inform research, facilitate change in practice, behaviour, or policy; or to commercialize an innovation). These elements are aligned with KT
strategies that are evidence-based or informed that can achieve the stated KT goal(s), and evaluation indicators that will demonstrate whether the KT goal was achieved. Note
that KT goals related to practice/behaviour change involve implementation science processes, strategies, and outcomes, and will require n an implementation plan.
A quality KT plan demonstrates alignment of the core KT planning elements:
a. the intended knowledge user audience(s) (Who could benefit knowing about this evidence?);
b. the main message(s) for each KU audience; (What message(s) will be targeted to each KU?)
c. the KT goal(s) (What is the purpose of sharing this evidence; how might KUs benefit?);
d. the KT strategies that will be used to realize each KT goal; (Use KT strategies that have evidence of utility for accomplishing specific KT goals)
e. the metrics or indicators that will provide evidence that each KT goal was achieved. Evaluating whether KT goals were achieved can support future use of KT methods,
produce a KT publication, increase value for KUs and stakeholders
A quality KT plan description will link a main message with related KU audience(s), KT goal(s), KT strategy(ies) and evaluation indicators. By comparison, poor KT plan will
merely describe KUs and KT strategies separately (i.e., not aligned) and fail to identify KT goals or means of evaluating whether goals were achieved.
3) Feasibility: Consider whether the KT plan is feasible, given the aims of the research; the timeline; the results; the composition, size and skills of the team (including purchased
or partnered services and resources); and the proposed KT budget. Lack of feasibility can manifest as too many strategies proposed in light of available resources; or a KT plan
unsupported by a corresponding budget.
To rate a KT Plan using the KT-PAT, tick the boxes that correspond to your critical appraisal of the main criteria and features. The overall appraisal will appear as poor (red), weak
(yellow), acceptable (green), or excellent (gold). Reviewers can then identify areas of strength and weaknesses in their comments to the applicant.
CAVEAT. KT plans within funding proposals must consider (i) whether KT is required, valued, and can be budgeted for; and (ii) the space allotted for description.

Version Date December 18, 2018

Barwick M (2018) Hospital for Sick Children©

Absent Weak Good Excellent

COMPREHENSIVENESS Feature is Feature is Feature is briefly Feature is very
missing vaguely described, no well described
Describe: mentioned elaboration
1) Project partners* (who is involved in developing and conducting the KT plan; are KUs included?)
2) Degree of Engagement* (when and how are KUs engaged and involved? Look for authentic KU engagement)
3) Partner Roles* (what are partner/collaborator/KU roles relative to the project and to developing and realizing the KT Plan?)
4) KT Expertise from project team, partners, and purchased services, relative to proposed KT strategies (is KT expertise described, if
warranted?)
5) Knowledge Users* (who are the targeted KUs? are any KUs missing that would strengthen the project?)
6) Main Messages* (are potential MMs identified or is the process of developing emerging MMs discussed?)
7) KT Goal(s)* (are KT goals described for each KU and MM? Is it clear what benefits may emerge from sharing the evidence?)
8) KT Strateg(ies)* (are KT strategies identified, and are they appropriate and/or evidence-informed relative to the KT Goal?)
9) KT Process (is the process identified as integrated KT and/or end of grant; is there evidence of authentic engagement in the iKT
process?)
10) KT Plan Evaluation* (what methods/indicators will be used to evaluate whether the KT goals were achieved?)
11) Resources required* (what resources are needed to conduct the KT activities and develop KT deliverables?)
12) Budget for KT* (what funds are requested for KT activities and deliverables? Are they adequate?)
13) Methods for KT plan execution (are the KT methods and procedures described?)

ALIGNMENT Absent Weak Good Excellent

Alignment is reflected in a description that aligns each main message with knowledge user(s), None of the features are Alignment between 2 features Alignment between 3- 4 features Alignment between 5 features
related KT goal(s), KT strategies, and indicators of whether KT goals were achieved. linked/aligned (e.g., KU is linked to a specific KT (e.g., main messages are linked to a (e.g., main messages are linked to a
e.g., “the main message for parents is (insert MM) with the aim of (insert KT Goal, i.e., building (e.g., description of KUs and KT strategy) KU and a strategy) KU, KT Goal, KT Strategy, and impact
awareness). The KT strategies to bel use are (insert KT strategies), as supported by the evidence strategies are separate and don’t indicator)
(citations). The following indicators (insert indicators) will provide evidence of KT goals relate to each other)
attainment.” (repeat as needed)
1) What degree of alignment is evident in the KT plan?

FEASIBILITY Absent Weak Good Excellent

1) Team composition (breadth of the team includes a range of skills and competencies, expertise, perspectives – as appropriate)
2) Availability of resources (there are sufficient resources, including people, to get the job done)
3) Proposed KT strategies are realistic relative to timeline, budget, available resources
4) The budget includes realistic and comprehensive costs associated with proposed KT activities
5) The potential for KU benefit or impact is clear and can be realized if the proposed KT plan is fully executed

Overall Assessment: tick the category that has the preponderance of scores Poor  Weak  Good  Excellent 

Reviewer Comments:

Version Date December 18, 2018