Knowledge mobilization in healthcare is crucial but under-researched. This study focuses on 'Workplace-based Knowledge Exchange Programmes' (WKEPs), immersive workplace experiences for knowledge exchange between academics, policymakers, and providers. Existing literature on knowledge mobilization in healthcare offers various approaches (embedded researchers, knowledge brokers, secondments), and frameworks exist for categorizing interventions, yet a comprehensive understanding of WKEPs is lacking. The study aims to map the characteristics of WKEPs in the UK, examining both academic literature and online program advertisements. The research question asks: What are the characteristics of WKEPs in the UK health and care field, as described in the academic literature and on program websites?

The literature review examined various approaches to knowledge exchange, including embedded researchers, knowledge brokers, and researcher secondments into policy organizations. Existing frameworks, such as Ward's (2017) framework, help categorize knowledge mobilization activities, but lack detail on practical aspects of implementing and evaluating knowledge exchange interventions. The researchers identified a gap in understanding the diversity of WKEPs, particularly the lack of comparative analysis of different intervention types. This study addresses this gap by exploring a wider range of WKEPs and providing a more nuanced understanding of their characteristics.

This scoping study employed a mixed-methods approach combining a scoping review of academic literature and a mapping exercise of online WKEP opportunities. The scoping review searched five databases (MEDLINE, Embase, ERIC, OpenGrey, HMIC, and Google Scholar) using a refined search strategy. The mapping exercise utilized five strategies to identify UK-based WKEPs: Google advanced searches, general Google searches, simplified search terms, single keywords, and word-of-mouth referrals. Inclusion criteria focused on employed adults in health and care, academia, or policy, involving at least one in-person workplace visit. Exclusion criteria included student placements, qualification-focused programs, and exchanges primarily for job acquisition. Data extraction followed the TIDieR framework, capturing information on aims, participants, duration, activities (job shadowing, work placements, project-based collaborations, secondments), and outcomes. Thematic analysis was used to identify key characteristics and relationships between WKEP features. The study also involved interviews with WKEP beneficiaries (reported separately). Ethical approval was obtained from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

The scoping review included 147 articles, primarily case reports, with few primary studies or randomized trials. The mapping exercise identified 74 WKEPs. WKEPs varied significantly in duration (one day to five years) and directionality (mostly unidirectional). The most common aims were improving leadership/management skills, developing networks/collaborations, and improving understanding of other fields. Most programs involved healthcare providers and academics, with few involving social care providers or policymakers. Four main WKEP activities were identified: job shadowing, work placements, project-based collaborations, and secondments. Many WKEP aims were not clearly defined, and formal evaluations were rare. The study developed a framework categorizing WKEPs into structures (aims, participants, duration), processes (activities, learning, scheduling), and outcomes (benefits, outputs, theories of change). The analysis revealed that while many programmes aimed to benefit individual professional development (micro level), many also aimed to improve organisational learning (meso level) and potentially the wider health and care system (macro level).

This study highlights the diversity and complexity of WKEPs in the UK health and care sector. The findings address the research question by providing a comprehensive description of WKEP characteristics, revealing a lack of standardized terminology, reporting, and evaluation practices. The framework presented helps organize and clarify this diverse landscape. The significance of the results lies in their potential to improve access to and understanding of WKEPs, enabling more effective design, implementation, and evaluation of future programs. The lack of evaluations indicates a critical need for research to understand WKEP effectiveness and impact. The underrepresentation of social care and policy-making suggests an opportunity to expand WKEP opportunities and address existing imbalances in the sector.

This scoping review and mapping exercise provided a detailed overview of the characteristics of Workplace-based Knowledge Exchange Programmes (WKEPs) in UK healthcare. The study's main contributions are the identification of four common WKEP activity types (job shadowing, work placements, project-based collaborations, and secondments), a proposed framework for categorizing WKEPs, and recommendations for improved reporting and accessibility. Future research should focus on developing and evaluating WKEPs, particularly in social care and policy-making, and establishing an online repository of WKEP opportunities.

The study's limitations include the potential for bias due to the limited number of primary studies and the reliance on publicly available data, which may not capture all WKEPs. The research team's composition might have influenced the interpretation of findings, and the mapping exercise inherently excluded self-organized exchanges without online descriptions. The lack of stakeholder co-development of recommendations is another limitation.