Abstract
Abstract
Background
Knowledge translation (KT) is essential for ensuring that research evidence informs policy and practice. However, little is known about researchers’ intentions to engage in KT activities or their relationship with conventional bibliometric indicators. This study aimed to (1) assess researchers’ intentions to engage in KT activities using a questionnaire informed by the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), and (2) examine the association between these intentions and individual bibliometric indicators.
Methods
A cross-sectional survey was conducted among faculty members at Tehran University of Medical Sciences. A questionnaire informed by selected constructs of the TPB was developed to assess researchers’ intentions to engage in activities across the seven components the action cycle of Knowledge-to-Action (KTA) framework. The instrument was validated through several rounds of expert review and then with a sample of potential participants. Bibliometric indicators (H-index, Number of Publications, Number of Citations, First-Author Publications, Corresponding Authorship, International Publications and Self-Citations) were extracted from the national academic registry. To assess representativeness, bibliometric characteristics of respondents were compared with those of a random sample of non-respondents drawn from the same registry. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) validated the intention construct, and Structural Equation Modeling examined associations with demographic and bibliometric variables.
Results
A total of 143 researchers participated. Intention scores were highest for adapting knowledge to local contexts and identifying barriers and facilitators, and lowest for monitoring and sustaining knowledge use. CFA supported a unidimensional intention construct with favorable model-fit indicators. No bibliometric indicator was significantly associated with KT intention. Age was the only significant predictor. Respondents had stronger bibliometric profiles than non-respondents, indicating potential non-response bias.
Conclusions
Researchers reported relatively strong intentions to engage in KT, but these intentions were not associated with conventional bibliometric indicators. Age was the only significant predictor. Overall, findings suggest that traditional academic metrics may not reflect KT intentions and highlight the need to strengthen institutional incentives for KT.