BACKGROUND Application of knowledge translation (KT) theories, models, and frameworks (TMFs) is one method for successfully incorporating evidence into clinical care. However, there are multiple KT TMFs and little guidance on which to select. This study sought to identify and describe available full-spectrum KT TMFs to subsequently guide users. METHODS A scoping review was completed. Articles were identified through searches within electronic databases, previous reviews, grey literature, and consultation with KT experts. Search terms included combinations of KT terms and theory-related terms. Included citations had to describe full-spectrum KT TMFs that had been applied or tested. Titles/abstracts and full-text articles were screened independently by two investigators. Each KT TMF was described by its characteristics including name, context, key components, how it was used, primary target audience, levels of use, and study outcomes. Each KT TMF was also categorized into theoretical approaches as process models, determinant frameworks, classic theories, implementation theories, and evaluation frameworks. Within each category, KT TMFs were compared and contrasted to identify similarities and unique characteristics. RESULTS Electronic searches yielded 7160 citations. Additional citations were identified from previous reviews (n = 41) and bibliographies of included full-text articles (n = 6). Thirty-six citations describing 36 full-spectrum were identified. In 24 KT TMFs, the primary target audience was multi-level including patients/public, professionals, organizational, and financial/regulatory. The majority of the KT TMFs were used within public health, followed by research (organizational, translation, health), or in multiple contexts. Twenty-six could be used at the individual, organization, or policy levels, five at the individual/organization levels, three at the individual level only, and two at the organizational/policy level. Categorization of the KT TMFs resulted in 18 process models, eight classic theories, three determinant frameworks, three evaluation frameworks, and four that fit more than one category. There were no KT TMFs that fit the implementation theory category. Within each category, similarities and unique characteristics emerged through comparison. CONCLUSIONS A systematic compilation of existing full-spectrum KT TMFs, categorization into different approaches, and comparison has been provided in a user-friendly way. This list provides options for users to select from when designing KT projects and interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION A protocol outlining the methodology of this scoping review was developed and registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018088564).

中文翻译：

---

对全谱知识翻译理论，模型和框架进行范围审查。

背景技术知识翻译（KT）理论，模型和框架（TMF）的应用是一种将证据成功地纳入临床护理的方法。但是，有多个KT TMF，几乎没有可供选择的指南。这项研究试图确定和描述可用的全谱KT TMF，以随后指导用户。方法完成范围界定审查。通过在电子数据库中进行搜索，以前的评论，灰色文献以及与KT专家进行磋商，可以识别出文章。搜索词包括KT词和理论相关词的组合。所引用的内容必须描述已应用或测试的全光谱KT TMF。标题/摘要和全文文章由两名调查员独立筛选。每个KT TMF都有其特征，包括名称，上下文，关键组成部分，使用方式，主要目标受众，使用级别和研究结果。每个KT TMF也被归类为理论方法，例如过程模型，行列式框架，经典理论，实施理论和评估框架。在每个类别中，对KT TMF进行了比较和对比，以确定相似性和独特性。结果电子检索获得7160次引用。从以前的评论（n = 41）和包括全文的参考书目（n = 6）中确定了其他引用。确定了36条全光谱的36条引文。在24个KT TMF中，主要目标受众是多层次的，包括患者/公众，专业人员，组织和财务/法规。大多数KT TMF在公共卫生中使用，其次是研究（组织，翻译，健康），或在多种情况下进行。可以在个人，组织或策略级别使用26个，在个人/组织级别使用5个，仅在个人级别使用3个，在组织/策略级别使用2个。KT TMF的分类产生了18个过程模型，8个经典理论，3个行列式框架，3个评估框架以及4个适合一个以上类别的框架。没有适合实施理论范畴的KT TMF。在每个类别中，通过比较出现了相似性和独特性。结论现有的全谱KT TMF的系统汇编，分类为不同的方法以及比较已经以一种用户友好的方式提供了。此列表为用户提供了设计KT项目和干预措施时可以选择的选项。试用注册已开发出概述此范围评估方法的协议，并已在PROSPERO中注册（CRD42018088564）。