Table 2 CMO configurations (CMOC)

Researchers involved in iKT felt motivated to move evidence into action

CMO 1: Academic researchers have the flexibility to design programs of research (resource). When academic researchers are self-motivated to move evidence into action (context), they prioritize KT strategies (reasoning) to build a foundation for successful co-production (outcome).

Researchers had trusted reputations as credible sources of evidence

CMO 2: Researchers have professional relationships and reputations (resource). When the reputations and relationships with key knowledge partners have a long and positive track record (context), the knowledge partners will be predisposed to trust researchers (reasoning), giving researchers improved access to knowledge partners for co-production (outcome).

Researchers were strategic partners for advocates and policy makers

CMO 3: Researchers are strategic ‘evidence advocates’ (resource). When other key groups face challenges that make action on a public health issue difficult due to political sensitivity and/or stigma (context), they perceive researchers as strategic partners (reasoning) and participate in iKT (outcome).

Researchers understood how health policy happens

CMO 4: Health policy is defined in laws, administrative guidelines, court rulings, programs, practices, and procedures (context). When researchers understand the processes governing a particular issue (resource), they can design KT strategies that target specific policy levers and policy windows (reasoning) to support evidence-informed policy change (outcome).

Researchers acted as a trusted convener between key groups and decision makers

CMO 5: Health policy is developed with input from key groups selected to align with the mandate of the decision maker (context). When researchers convene an iKT coalition and involve key groups to co-produce evidence (resource), the decision maker has an increased understanding of and confidence in the evidence (reasoning) supporting policy change (outcome).