{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.026524148851939825, 'fraction_numerical': 0.014251781472684086, 'mean_word_length': 5.39746835443038, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Developing a tool to assess institutional readiness to conduct knowledge translation activities in low-and middle-income countries


 Background

Academic institutions are well-poised to conduct knowledge translation (KT) but face many barriers, particularly in low resource settings where the need is greatest. Assessing the readiness of academic institutions to conduct KT can help our understanding of these barriers. However, limited research has been conducted to understand influencers of readiness for KT in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and there are no tools for KT readiness assessment designed for LMIC contexts. This paper describes the development of a tool for assessing organizational readiness to conduct KT among academic institutions in LMICs.
Methods

A literature review and stakeholder consultation process was conducted to identify constructs and items relevant for assessing KT readiness in LMICs. These were face validated with LMIC stakeholders and organized into a questionnaire measured on a Likert scale. A quantitative survey was conducted and the questionnaire distributed to faculty based at 6 LMIC academic institutions, as well as members of a global knowledge-to-action thematic working group. An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used to identify underlying dimensions of a tool for assessing institutional readiness to conduct KT.
Results

A total of 111 respondents with varied KT experiences from 10 LMICs (including Bangladesh, Ethiopia, DR Congo, India, Indonesia, Nigeria) were included in the analysis. We selected five factors and 23 items, with factor loadings ranging from 0.40 to 0.77. The five factors include 1) institutional climate, 2) organization change efficacy, 3) prioritization and cosmopolitanism, 4) self-efficacy, and 5) financial resources. These five factors accounted for 69% of the total variance, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of 0.78, 0.73, 0.62, 0.68, and 0.52, respectively.
Conclusions

This study identify a tool for assessing readiness of LMIC academic institutions to conduct KT, and unique opportunities for building capacity among academic institutions for KT. The organizational focus of these factors underscores the need for strategies that address organizational systems and structures in addition to individual knowledge, skills, and tools. Future research will be conducted to understand determinants of these factors and develop a comprehensive set of capacity building strategies responsive to academic institutions in LMICs.