# Integrating Knowledge Translation: A Swiss Approach to Bridging Research and Health System Improvement

## TL;DR

This study evaluates a Swiss initiative that aims to bridge health research and policy by building capacity for knowledge translation and fostering collaboration between scientists and stakeholders.

## Contribution

The study provides insights into how a national Learning Health System can support knowledge translation through capacity building and stakeholder engagement.

## Key findings

- Capacity-building efforts successfully shifted researchers toward a science-policy-practice mindset.
- Participatory methods helped break down silos and build community among stakeholders.
- Co-creation with patients and partners is crucial for improving the relevance and impact of research.

## Abstract

The Swiss Learning Health System (SLHS), funded from 2017 to 2025, facilitated the movement of research to practice and policy, responding to national calls to enhance health services research and build research scientist capacity. This study evaluates the SLHS to understand how Learning Health System (LHS) science can provide a foundation for Knowledge Translation (KT) platforms at a national level, identifying successes, challenges, and lessons learned from capacity building and institutionalizing KT in support of evidence‐informed decision‐making (EIDM) in health policy and practice.

We employed a mixed‐methods approach from September to December 2023, using the SLHS program aims and the Knowledge‐to‐Action framework to inform the study's conceptualization. Data collection involved two workshops with over 40 SLHS members, a survey of 39 members, and in‐depth interviews with 10 key informants, analyzed using descriptive and thematic methods.

Capacity‐building efforts prompting a cultural shift by training research scientists to adopt a science‐policy‐practice mindset were the most common successes captured. The LHS and KT approaches aided in dismantling silos and encouraged community building through participatory methods. An important lesson learned is the value of co‐creation involving key partners, especially patients, in the research process to strengthen relevance, issue prioritization, and evidence use. However, challenges persisted in adequately tailoring and transferring knowledge, highlighting the need for more consistent engagement with community partners to enhance the impact and relevance of KT efforts.

This study demonstrated that the SLHS is a valued initiative for capacity building, while highlighting the need to strengthen co‐creation and refine strategies for adapting research evidence for EIDM in health policy and practice.