Optimising knowledge mobilisation in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) could prove beneficial for improving mental health care, alleviating the global burden of high prevalence mental health problems and reducing inequalities. This review aimed to systematically review and synthesise the evidence on knowledge mobilisation for mental health improvement in LMICs, identifying barriers and facilitators and recommendations to guide progress. Four electronic databases were searched from inception to March 2024 using free text syntax combining synonyms of knowledge mobilisation, mental health and LMICs. Articles were eligible for inclusion if they were peer reviewed, on the topic of mental health and included evaluation data on knowledge mobilisation undertaken in LMICs. Included studies were quality assessed using the mixed-methods appraisal tool, and data extracted and synthesised narratively, complemented with the use of the framework for knowledge mobilisers and thematic analysis. Seventy-eight studies met the inclusion criteria. Successful knowledge mobilisation within resource-constrained settings was supported by several key facilitators. These include promoting community participation, engaging local stakeholders from the start and maintaining that engagement and building trust through equitable, long-term partnerships. Using structured frameworks helps guide systematic involvement, while fostering local ownership and leadership ensures sustainability and relevance. Knowledge mobilisation in low-resource settings faced several barriers, including limited logistical and financial resources, low literacy levels and a general lack of awareness about psychological interventions. A lack of mental health-specific training and language or translation difficulties further hindered efforts to effectively mobilise and implement mental health knowledge. Future knowledge mobilisation efforts could be strengthened by fostering sustained, trust-based collaborations among stakeholders and engaging policymakers early to ensure optimal alignment and buy-in. Emphasising local beliefs and attitudes is crucial, as is creating inclusive, participatory environments that encourage broad community involvement. Employing culturally responsive, community-driven frameworks can enhance relevance and impact, while rigorous evaluation of mobilisation strategies is critical to guide future research investment and resource allocation. Mobilising mental health knowledge in LMIC shares principles with mobilising other types of knowledge but differs in focus, stakeholders and challenges due to the stigma of mental health problems, its complexity, cultural sensitivity, misconceptions and resistance.

Evaluation of benefits beyond quantitative academic outputs is essential in determining translational research value. We used the Translational Science Benefits Model (TSBM) to examine the impact of the QUARTET USA trial using 30 benefits across 4 domains: Clinical, Community, Economic, and Policy. We found that the QUARTET USA trial demonstrated impact in six areas within the Clinical, and Community domains and had potential impact in two additional areas within the Community and Economic domains. Use of the TSBM supports the value of the QUARTET USA trial, which can be used as a template for future cardiovascular trials.

The body of scientific knowledge accumulated by the scholarly disciplines such as Developmental Psychopathology can achieve meaningful public impact if wielded and used in policy decision-making. Scientific study of how policymakers use research evidence underscores the need for researchers’ policy engagement; however, barriers in the academy create conditions in which there is a need for infrastructure that increases the feasibility of researchers’ partnership with policymakers. This need led to the development of the Research-to-Policy Collaboration model, a systematic approach for developing “boundary spanning” infrastructure, which has been experimentally tested and shown to improve policymakers’ use of research evidence and bolster researchers’ policy skills and engagement. This paper presents original research regarding the optimization of the RPC model, which sought to better serve and engage scholars across the globe. Trial findings shed light on ways to improve conditions that make good use of researchers’ time for policy engagement via a virtual platform and enhanced e-communications. Future directions, implications, and practical guidelines for how scientists can engage in the political process and improve the impact of a collective discipline are also discussed.

The Consensus Reporting Items for Studies in Primary care (CRISP) provides a new research reporting guideline to meet the needs of the producers and users of primary care (PC) research. Developed through an iterative program of research, including investigators, practicing clinicians, patients, community representatives, and educators, the CRISP Checklist guides PC researchers across the spectrum of research methods, study designs, and topics. This pilot test included a variety of team members using the CRISP Checklist for writing, revising, and reviewing PC research reports. All or most of the 15 participants reported that the checklist was easy to use, improved research reports, and should be recommended by PC research journals. The checklist is adaptable to different study types; not all items apply to all reports. The CRISP Checklist can help meet the needs of PC research when used in parallel with existing guidelines that focus on specific methods and limited topics.

This in-depth analysis illuminates a translational journey of a community-university research collaboration that examined health disparities among incarcerated pregnant women and spanned the translational spectrum, with the initial collaboration in 2011 paving the way for consequent research grants, publications, practices, programs, and legislation passed years later. The case study utilized data from interviews with research stakeholders, institutional and governmental sources, peer-reviewed publications, and news stories. Identified research and translational challenges included cultural differences between research and prison system; the prison system’s lack of transparency; politics of using and translating research to policy change; and issues of capacity, power, privilege, and opportunity when doing community-engaged research/science. Among the facilitators of translation were the Clinical and Translational Science Award and institutional support; engagement of key stakeholders and influencers; authentic collaboration and team science; researchers as translation catalysts; pragmatic scientific approach; and policies and legislative activities. The research contributed to a variety of community and public health, policy/legislative, clinical/medical, and economic benefits. The case study findings enhance our understanding of translational science principles and processes leading to improved wellbeing and serve as a call for advancing the research agenda addressing health disparities related to criminal and social justice issues.

In Australia there is a systematic ranking of academic research performance, with a major impact metric being based on publications in prestigious journals. Other countries like Britain with its Research Excellence Framework also have similar metrics. While much analysis and publicity is devoted to the rankings of the quality of research, there has been very little focus on how this ranked research has then gone on to make a public policy impact. In the case of the economics discipline, there has been little exploration of the relationship between publication in a high-ranked journal and contribution to an analysis of Australia’s most pressing economic issues. This article investigates the extent to which articles in the Diamond list of journals from 2001 to 2010 addressed Australian economic issues. Our results indicate that articles on current policy issues accounted for a very modest fraction of total Diamond list journal articles. One possible explanation for this finding, which is investigated further, is the correlation between an economics department’s Excellence in Research Australia ranking and the number of staff who obtained their doctorates from an overseas university. Such a correlation has implications for the status afforded to economics research with a specific national focus.

In this perspective article, I draw on transition research that has been developed to account for the transitions in many socio-technical systems within human society, such as energy, water, and food. I argue that many ideas developed in transition research can be applied to the ecosystem of contemporary business schools in China for its transformation. Using the multi-level perspective (MLP) from transition research as an analytic framework, I examine the socio-technical system of business schools in China for understanding the main forces that may shape a potential transition of the sector. I also draw on transition management theory and insights from research on the politics of transitions for important conditions that are required to enable a transition in this specific context.

In this editorial, we are delighted to introduce the seven papers in this Special Issue. Each article considers various aspects of how management research can assist in the achievement of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in different contexts. Starting from a desire to provide a mechanism to drive real research outcomes for management research, this editorial considers the SDGs and their implementation/adoption in universities and businesses to date. It then introduces the different contexts for management research and the SDGs explored in the seven articles in the Special Issue. Finally, in a Postscript at the end of this Special Issue, we look at current progress against the SDGs, how COVID-19 has impacted this progress and what the future may hold for the links between management research and the SDGs.

This paper proposes that the United Nation's sustainable development goals (SDGs) and associated targets form an effective framework for determining real-world research impact. Existing bibliometrics that assess the quality of academic work are usually quantitative and self-referential, reducing the focus on real-world issues. The same measurements are often adopted by funding bodies, pressuring researchers to increase compliance, and further reducing integrity and real-world impact. A series of world cafés were conducted, collecting data on how researchers, their institutions, and network organisations can contribute to, and measure research aligned with the SDGs and targets. The results showed that participants were generally positive towards using the SDGs and targets to measure impact and quality of academic research. Suggestions to assist greater adoption of the SDGs and targets as a measure of impact included: aligning governmental and institutional funding; changing key performance indicators; increasing cross-disciplinary work; aligning mission/vision statements; and legitimising SDG-focused projects at conferences.

There is increasing emphasis on the need for effective ways of sharing knowledge to enhance environmental management and sustainability. Knowledge exchange (KE) are processes that generate, share and/or use knowledge through various methods appropriate to the context, purpose, and participants involved. KE includes concepts such as sharing, generation, coproduction, comanagement, and brokerage of knowledge. This paper elicits the expert knowledge of academics involved in research and practice of KE from different disciplines and backgrounds to review research themes, identify gaps and questions, and develop a research agenda for furthering understanding about KE. Results include 80 research questions prefaced by a review of research themes. Key conclusions are: (1) there is a diverse range of questions relating to KE that require attention; (2) there is a particular need for research on understanding the process of KE and how KE can be evaluated; and (3) given the strong interdependency of research questions, an integrated approach to understanding KE is required. To improve understanding of KE, action research methodologies and embedding evaluation as a normal part of KE research and practice need to be encouraged. This will foster more adaptive approaches to learning about KE and enhance effectiveness of environmental management.