Table 4 The connection between knowledge production and implementing actors in a continuum
Knowledge production was initially detached from implementing actor’s practice | Knowledge was adapted through an interface with implementing actors | Knowledge emerges from a dynamic and interactive learning space | Knowledge emerges from the practitioners and from communities themselves |
|---|---|---|---|
(1) ⟶ | (2) ⟶ | (3) ⟶ | (4) |
° Experts developed an intervention, notion of rigorous methodologies, established global evidence, strong scientific validity [49,50,51,52,53, 56, 57, 61, 64] ° Mention the gap between research and practice, and the need to understand how to implement or scale up effective interventions [51,52,53,54] | ° Piloting, monitor, evaluate and adapt interventions [48, 51,52,53,54,55, 58,59,60] ° Address poor translation of knowledge into practice [48, 57] ° Mixed approaches (epidemiology, economics, social sciences) to document changes and adapt throughout the process [51,52,53, 57,58,59] ° Establish protocols, resources centres, ensure fidelity [49, 51,52,53, 55, 56, 59] | ° Interactive learning spaces are open over time [44, 45, 49, 63] ° Participatory learning processes, co-thinking, co-production of knowledge [44,45,46] ° Shared responsibilities [44, 62, 63, 65] ° Implementing actor bring knowledge on practice and context [47, 49, 51,52,53,54, 58, 59] ° Discuss findings with communities and practitioners [44,45,46,47, 54, 63, 65] | ° The core notion of evidence is re-examined [46, 49, 63, 65] ° Knowledge is power, represents a cultural capital [46, 48] ° Unintended negative impact when interventions are imported [64] ° Need to decolonialise knowledge [64] |