Research translation demystified

A consistent finding in health and medical research is the failure to translate research into useful and usable services in practice and policy (3). The process has often been described as slow and haphazard. For many years, and consistently across multiple studies, evidence has shown limited translation of research into routine practice. One widely cited review suggests that it takes an average of 17 years for approximately 14% of research to be adopted into clinical practice (4).

Other reviews have reported that an estimated 30% to 45% of patients in countries such as the United States and the Netherlands do not receive care aligned with scientific evidence, while 20% to 25% of care provided is not needed or may be potentially harmful. Reviews examining research wastage have highlighted several points where knowledge translation (KT) could improve outcomes and reduce avoidable loss of research value.

While estimates of timelines and uptake rates vary by discipline, setting, and methodology, the overarching message is consistent: a substantial proportion of research does not achieve timely or meaningful use. In response, efforts to improve the movement of research evidence into health and medical practice have continued to expand, resulting in a proliferation of models, frameworks, terminology, and definitions aimed at bridging the research-to-practice gap.

This matters in practice because expectations around research translation are now embedded within Australian funding, assessment, and reporting processes. Grant applications increasingly require researchers to articulate pathways to impact, demonstrate engagement beyond academia, and justify the likely use of research outputs. Without clarity on what research translation involves, there is a risk that it will be treated as an add-on rather than a core component of research design and delivery.

What is research translation?

In Australia, funders and research organisations have adopted mainly the term research translation, rather than more internationally established terms such as knowledge translation, knowledge transfer and exchange, or research utilisation. The debate about terminology is wide-ranging and ongoing. While these discussions are important, an excessive focus on labels can distract from the underlying purpose.

Instead, it is more useful to examine what is meant by research translation in practice. This is not straightforward, as there is no single, formal definition of research translation in Australia. As a result, it is helpful to draw on internationally accepted definitions that describe how research evidence moves into action.

Defining knowledge translation

The World Health Organisation defines knowledge translation (KT) as:

“The synthesis, exchange, and application of knowledge by relevant stakeholders to accelerate the benefits of global and local innovation in strengthening health systems and improving people’s health.”

Knowledge translation is sometimes confused with dissemination, communication, commercialisation, technology transfer, or continuing medical education.

While these activities may contribute to translation, they do not on their own constitute knowledge translation.

Knowledge translation should be understood as a system rather than a single activity or stage of research. It requires specific skills, enabling structures, appropriate incentives, and sustained partnerships between researchers and those who use research in policy and practice.

Knowledge translation is the process of moving knowledge into action. It occurs through ongoing exchange of information and evidence between those who produce research and those who use it in decision-making (4). It represents the meeting ground between research and action (1), increasing the likelihood that research informs policy and practice and that it also shapes more relevant research questions (4).

Importantly, there is a broad consensus that knowledge translation is a social, non-linear process, grounded in relationships and shaped by context.

For example, effective knowledge translation may involve policy co-production with government agencies, collaboration with professional bodies to inform clinical guideline development, or ongoing engagement with service providers to adapt evidence to local contexts. In each case, translation depends on relationships and organisational support, not just researcher intent.

What about translational research?

Why definitions matter

In simple terms, translational research focuses on generating research that can be translated, while research translation focuses on ensuring that research is actually used.

In Australian funding and research contexts, the terms research translation and translational research are often used interchangeably. However, these are distinct concepts, and the difference matters.

Translational research has been described as research that leads to, or has a high capacity for, knowledge translation, particularly where it addresses recognised gaps between discovery and application (2). For some, this refers to research into the methods of translation itself, such as implementation or improvement research. For others, it refers to the movement of knowledge from bench to bedside, for example through clinical trials or applied biomedical research.

Conflating these concepts can create practical problems. Translational research may be assumed to guarantee impact, while the additional work required to support uptake, adaptation, and use of research is overlooked. This can affect how grants are assessed, how impact is evaluated, and how success is measured, particularly when translation is treated as implicit rather than planned and resourced.

Why this distinction matters in practice

Clarity about research translation is not merely semantic. It has practical implications for:

• grant assessment and justification

• impact pathway development

• reporting and evaluation of outcomes

• researcher capability development

• institutional systems and incentives

• partnerships with policy, practice, and community stakeholders

For funders and institutions, assessing translational potential is not the same as assessing translation processes or outcomes. Clear definitions support more realistic expectations, fairer evaluation, and better alignment between research investment and societal benefit.

Final reflections

Research translation and translational research are both important, but they are not interchangeable. The next time you are discussing translation, it is worth asking what people mean by the term and how they understand the process of moving research into use.

Clarity of language is only a starting point. Effective research translation ultimately depends on relationships, systems, skills, and sustained institutional commitment to ensuring research contributes beyond academia.