Workplace-based knowledge exchange programmes between academics, policymakers and providers in the health and social care sector: a scoping review and mapping exercise

The paper addresses how immersive, workplace-based interactions can mobilise knowledge across the UK health and care sector. Knowledge mobilisation is defined as sharing between communities to catalyse change and includes research evidence, technical knowledge, and practical wisdom. Existing implementation-focused literature and frameworks (e.g., Ward 2017) classify why, whose, what, and how knowledge is mobilised but provide limited guidance on practical details of running or participating in exchanges. The authors identify a gap in comparing knowledge exchange interventions and describing their operational characteristics. They define Workplace-based Knowledge Exchange Programmes (WKEPs) as immersive, in-person time spent in another workplace to observe, learn, and share expertise. The research question is: What are the characteristics of WKEPs in the health and care field in the UK as described in the international academic literature and on programme websites/webpages? The study aims to increase awareness, accessibility, and clarity of WKEP opportunities by mapping their structures, processes, and outcomes and proposing a practical framework and reporting principles.

The literature on knowledge mobilisation in health and care is extensive and includes interventions such as embedded researchers/researchers-in-residence, knowledge brokers/boundary spanners, secondments of researchers into policy organisations, embedded teams of researchers and policymakers, and long-term academia–practice partnerships. Conceptual frameworks (notably Ward 2017) have advanced the field by clarifying motivations (e.g., developing local solutions, policy development, implementation, behaviour change, producing research), actors, types of knowledge, and mechanisms. However, prior work is less informative about comparing interventions or detailing practicalities (structures, processes) of exchanges. The authors highlight examples (e.g., paired learning within hospitals; Harkness Fellowships) that span multiple aims beyond existing frameworks’ categories, underscoring the need for an applied framework tailored to immersive, workplace-based exchanges. The review also notes limited articulation of specific methods for knowledge exchange and sparse formal evaluations in the knowledge mobilisation space.

Design: Scoping review and online mapping exercise conducted in parallel, following recognised scoping methodologies (Arksey & O’Malley; Levac et al.; PRISMA-ScR). Five stages: defining questions; identifying studies/programmes; selecting texts/programmes; charting data; collating, summarising, reporting. Data sources and search: For the scoping review, searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, ERIC, OpenGrey, HMIC, and Google Scholar (initially 01/01/2000–03/03/2020; updated 01/07/2022). Search strategies were adapted per database and reviewed by a clinical librarian. For the mapping exercise (UK-focused), identification approaches included Google searches using scoping terms and simplified derivatives, site-specific searches of funders/organisations, single-term searches simulating applicant behaviour, and word-of-mouth recommendations from interviewees. Eligibility: Included exchanges targeted employed adults in health and care as providers (clinical/non-clinical), academics, or policymakers and involved at least one uni- or bidirectional in-person workplace visit. Excluded: school/undergraduate placements, degree/qualification-oriented programmes, job retraining placements, international clinical placements focused on training overseas clinicians, and non-immersive programmes (e.g., purely virtual or network-based without workplace immersion). The scoping review included any study design (including opinions and case reports) if at least one UK participant/component was involved. Mapping was limited to UK-based or UK-targeting programmes. Screening and selection: Two reviewers independently screened titles/abstracts and assessed full texts for the scoping review; disagreements were resolved by discussion. Mapping eligibility was assessed by one reviewer with a 10% coding check by a second reviewer; additional programmes added through peer review. Data extraction: A framework adapted from TIDieR captured descriptive information: objectives, settings, participant roles, organisation, characteristics, duration, and (for literature) study design and findings. For websites, information was extracted from publicly available pages and linked documents. Synthesis and analysis: Descriptive summaries and deductive/inductive thematic analyses in Excel were used to identify frequencies and themes across structures, processes, and outcomes. Programmes and texts were categorised by four WKEP activity types: job shadowing, work placements, project-based collaborations, and secondments. Ambiguities were resolved by reasonable inference (e.g., interpreting unspecified in-person visits as shadowing). The team iteratively refined a conceptual framework, referencing existing models (Davies et al. 2015; Ward 2017) and related exchange types (e.g., embedded researchers). No formal risk-of-bias assessment was conducted. Ethics: Reviewed and approved by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine Observational and Interventions Research Ethics Committee (Ref 21668, 11 March 2020). All data were from the public domain.

- Identification and scope: - Scoping review: 6,249 records identified; 1,679 full texts screened; 147 papers included (mostly self-reported case reports: 142; 3 primary research studies; 2 reviews; no RCTs). Thirty-three described themselves as evaluations. - Mapping exercise: 970 Google search hits plus site-specific (22) and word-of-mouth (26) led to 74 WKEPs analysed. - Activity types and prevalence: - Four core in-person WKEP activities were identified: job shadowing, work placements, project-based collaborations, and secondments. - Scoping review distribution (main activity): job shadowing 50/147 (34%); secondments 50/147 (34%); project-focused 25/147 (17%); work placements 22/147 (15%). - Mapping: Among 74 WKEPs, 100 activities were identified: project-based collaborations 34 (34%); work placements 24 (24%); job shadowing 22 (22%); secondments 20 (20%). Fifty programmes (68%) featured a single activity; 24 (32%) had two or more. - Directionality of exchanges: - Scoping review: job shadowing and secondments were exclusively uni-directional; most work placements uni-directional; project collaborations could be uni- or bi-directional. - Mapping: 51/74 (69%) programmes were uni-directional visits (no reciprocal visit). - Aims: - Webpages: most common aims included improving leadership/management skills (n=25), developing networks/collaborations (n=19), and improving understanding of another field/site (n=19) to bring back knowledge. About half were multi-purpose, spanning micro (individual), meso (organisational), and macro (system) aims. - Participants and settings: - Mapping: programmes mainly targeted providers (n=27) and academics (n=23, including one for academic support staff). Eight open to multiple groups; two restricted to digital health participants. Only two programmes for social care; six specifically for policymakers (e.g., CAPE, CSaP, IPR Policy Fellowship, RAEng Policy Fellowship, Royal Society Pairing Scheme, UCL Visiting Policy Fellows). - Career stage: any stage (n=33); early (n=13); mid/late (n=9); senior (n=5). Clinical placements often near end of training or within five years post-specialist qualification; some programmes required specific qualifications (e.g., PhD, diplomas). - Additional stakeholder noted: industry featured in some WKEPs; no public involvement identified in immersive WKEPs. - Geography: - Scoping review: international travel predominant (n=92); national (n=9); others unclear. - Mapping: national (n=32), regional (n=9), international involving UK participants (n=19). - Duration and format: - Scoping review: job shadowing/work placements ranged 3 days–2 years; secondments 1–3 years; project collaboration durations often unreported (only 34 texts specified). - Mapping: median 12 months; range one day to five years; options varied between part-time over longer periods and full-time short stints. - Applications and funding: - Literature: application/funding rarely described; many self-organised exchanges. - Mapping: nearly all required applications (often interviews), typically annual cycles; funding commonly included salary/stipend, research costs, training/mentoring; total costs often unclear when salary coverage varied by applicant. - Learning expectations and processes: - Job shadowing often included pre-set learning objectives with post-exchange review; pre/post virtual meetings and end-of-exchange meetings sometimes reported. - Work placements: some required objectives; fewer than one in four reported post-review; additional training (e.g., language) sometimes provided. - Project collaborations: deliverables stated but learning objectives rarely described. - Secondments: limited clarity on objective-setting or reflection practices. - Mapping revealed little on learning expectations. - Scheduling and permissions: - Job shadowing typically informal, requiring employer/training permissions; some exchanges designated as OOPEs (n=14); HR/occupational health checks rarely reported. - Work placements: pairing via self-organisation, networks, or organisers; permissions from employers/deaneries; HR/security checks seldom detailed. - Project collaborations and secondments: arrangements and checks often unclear; some led by a coordinating organisation. - Mapping lacked back-end process details beyond application steps. - Benefits, outcomes, and evaluations: - Benefits (scoping review): personal (broadened horizons, motivation, cultural awareness, confidence, knowledge, language skills), professional (leadership, evidence-based practice), organisational (strategic skill deployment, transition support). No explicit benefits were reported for project-based collaborations in the literature sample. - Mapping: fewer than half of programmes described participant benefits; commonly cited: building partnerships/collaborations; employability/skills development; enhanced professional reputation; supporting international development; improving community well-being. - Theories of change: none explicit in scoping review; few in mapping (CSaP explicit; NIHR 70@70 inferable). Evaluations: 33/147 papers self-described as evaluations; mapping identified five evaluated programmes (CSaP, HEE Deaneries Global Health Fellowship, HEE Improving Global Health Fellowship, NIHR 70@70, Paired Learning).

The study addresses its research question by characterising WKEPs’ structures, processes, and outcomes across UK health and care, drawing from both academic literature and programme webpages. It confirms that immersive, workplace-based exchanges exist in varied forms and durations, are predominantly uni-directional, and serve multi-level aims (individual, organisational, system). By identifying four core activity types—job shadowing, work placements, project-based collaborations, and secondments—the study offers a pragmatic vocabulary that can standardise descriptions and facilitate comparison across programmes. The authors propose an applied conceptual framework and reporting principles to improve clarity, comparability, and evaluation readiness. The significance lies in surfacing poor findability, inconsistent reporting, and imbalances (notably limited opportunities for social care and policymakers), which collectively hinder participation, learning, and evidence accumulation. Recommendations include: adopting common language across WKEPs; more comprehensive advertising and reporting (aims, theories of change, benefits, costs, processes); and establishing an online repository to improve discoverability. The discussion also highlights practical ways to address access barriers (e.g., virtual exchanges) and to leverage existing toolkits and evidence on facilitators (e.g., prior organisational relationships, strong brokerage, structured part-time secondments), thus enhancing the relevance and scalability of WKEPs for knowledge mobilisation.

The study systematically mapped 147 texts and 74 programme webpages to delineate the characteristics of Workplace-based Knowledge Exchange Programmes (WKEPs) in UK health and care. It identifies substantial heterogeneity in duration, formality, and aims, and clarifies four core activities—job shadowing, work placements, project-based collaborations, and secondments—as a shared language for describing immersive, in-person knowledge exchange. The authors propose a practical framework and reporting principles to improve WKEP design, communication, and evaluation, and recommend establishing an online register of opportunities. They encourage employers across providers, academia, and policy to develop WKEPs as professional development pathways and call for better capture of benefits, outcomes, and costs to improve effectiveness. Future research should address underrepresentation of social care and policymakers, test and refine the framework and principles with stakeholders, and strengthen evaluation and theory-of-change development for WKEPs.

- Identification bias and coverage: Despite systematic searching, the identified exchanges likely represent only a fraction of total activity, skewed toward more structured and publicly advertised programmes; self-organised exchanges without an online footprint were excluded from the mapping. - Reporting quality: Both literature and websites had poor and inconsistent reporting; no single source covered all extraction domains, limiting comprehensive understanding of individual programmes. - Methodological constraints: Time and budget limited depth; no formal quality appraisal was undertaken, and data extraction sometimes required interpretive assumptions. - Team composition: The research team comprised mostly general practice providers and a health policy researcher; current policymakers and social care practitioners were not represented, potentially biasing interpretation. - Generalisability: The mapping focused on the UK (or UK-resident–targeted programmes), and the scoping review required a UK linkage, which may limit applicability elsewhere. - Stakeholder engagement: Recommendations (framework and reporting principles) were not co-developed or tested with stakeholders due to resource constraints. - Sectoral scope: Some health and care roles (e.g., private-sector digital health, consulting, pharma) may not align neatly with the provider–policymaker–researcher categories used.