The study was conducted as the second, qualitative phase of a sequential explanatory mixed-methods project. Twenty-one experts were recruited through snowball sampling from eleven Type I medical universities, the highest tier of Iran’s medical education system. The participant pool deliberately spanned the organizational hierarchy: faculty members who produce research, senior administrators who allocate resources and set strategy, and knowledge translation specialists who sit at the interface between the two worlds. Between February and August 2023, the researchers conducted semistructured interviews lasting between forty-five and ninety minutes, allowing participants to describe in their own words what helps and what hinders the movement of evidence into policy and practice within their institutions.

Analysis followed the inductive content analysis framework of Elo and Kyngäs, proceeding through open coding, categorization, and abstraction with the qualitative analysis software ATLAS.ti. Rigor was addressed through several established safeguards: member checking, in which participants reviewed the researchers’ interpretations; peer debriefing among the analytic team; and audit trails documenting how codes and categories evolved. Inter-coder reliability was quantified using Cohen’s Kappa, reaching a value of 0.82, which is conventionally interpreted as almost perfect agreement between independent coders. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, with ethics approval from the Kerman University of Medical Sciences Ethics Committee and written informed consent from all participants.

From this analysis, five overarching dimensions of organizational readiness for knowledge translation emerged. The first is organizational culture and research climate, encompassing the norms, values, and informal expectations that determine whether evidence is genuinely valued or merely tolerated. The second is human resource development and training, the formal and informal structures through which staff acquire the skills to find, appraise, summarize, and communicate research findings. The third is knowledge production and sharing, the pipelines through which new evidence is generated, stored, and circulated inside and beyond the institution. The fourth is evidence-based policy and strategy, the extent to which institutional decision-making processes are explicitly designed around research findings. The fifth, and for the authors the most consequential, is monitoring and evaluation mechanisms, the systems that track whether knowledge translation efforts are actually functioning.

What elevates this study beyond a conventional checklist of readiness factors is its second-order analysis of how these five dimensions relate to one another. Rather than treating monitoring and evaluation as the final step of an implementation sequence, the researchers found that feedback loops function as the connective tissue of the entire system. In their formulation, feedback mechanisms act as the nervous system of knowledge translation readiness, continuously sensing what is happening across culture, training, production, and policy, and transmitting signals that allow the organization to learn and adapt. Without those loops, the other four dimensions operate in isolation; with them, the organization develops the dynamic capacity to correct course, reinforce what works, and abandon what does not.

This reframing carries real theoretical weight. Many existing knowledge translation frameworks, inherited from linear models of research uptake, position monitoring as a subsequent and largely administrative stage that occurs after the substantive work of translation is complete. The Iranian findings invert that logic: the feedback apparatus is not downstream of implementation but upstream of it, because organizations that cannot perceive the consequences of their own actions cannot become ready for anything. In systems terms, feedback converts a static bundle of resources into a learning system, and it is precisely that learning capacity, the authors argue, that distinguishes institutions where evidence routinely shapes decisions from institutions where reports accumulate unread.

The expert interviews also yielded a sobering catalogue of the barriers currently undermining this capacity in Iranian medical universities. Participants described siloed communication, in which departments, faculties, and administrative units exchange information poorly or not at all, fragmenting the very loops that the readiness model depends upon. They reported limited incentives for the use of evidence, meaning that career advancement, recognition, and reward structures do not encourage either researchers to engage with practice or managers to engage with research. They cited a lack of managerial commitment, insufficient capacity-building structures for developing the specialized skills that knowledge translation demands, and weak linkages between research units and the practice environments, such as hospitals and public health programs, that the evidence is meant to inform.

The authors conclude that enhancing organizational readiness for knowledge translation in this setting requires a multifaceted approach that strengthens cultural, structural, and leadership capacities simultaneously, rather than addressing any single factor in isolation. Most pointedly, they argue that establishing structured feedback mechanisms must be viewed as the core driver, not an afterthought, of sustainable knowledge translation implementation. In practical terms, that would mean designing deliberate channels through which evidence use is observed, questioned, and evaluated: routine forums where researchers and decision-makers exchange information, evaluation systems that generate usable information about how evidence flows, and leadership practices that treat feedback as a resource rather than a threat.

The study’s authors are careful to specify the limits of their claims. The findings identify enabling conditions for knowledge translation rather than providing direct evidence that strengthening these conditions improves health outcomes, a distinction that matters for anyone tempted to treat the five-dimension model as a guaranteed prescription. The research is also confined to Type I medical universities in one national context, and organizational readiness in smaller institutions or different health systems may depend on a different balance of factors. Nevertheless, the implications travel beyond Iran. Knowledge translation challenges are well documented across low- and middle-income countries, where research production has often expanded faster than the organizational machinery needed to apply it. By proposing feedback as the organizing principle of readiness, the study offers a testable hypothesis for implementation science: that the first question any research institution should ask is not how much evidence it produces, but how effectively it hears the signal of its own experience. By addressing these readiness factors, the authors suggest, medical universities can strengthen their role in evidence-informed policy and practice, turning the institutional pyramid of training, production, and strategy into a genuinely self-correcting system.

Subject of Research: Organizational readiness for knowledge translation and feedback loops in Iranian medical universities

Article Title: Feedback loops as a core driver: rethinking organizational readiness for knowledge translation in Iranian medical universities

Article References: Rezaei, F., Saberian, M., Ghasemi, S., Gharibi, Z., & Hosseinzadeh, H. (2026). Feedback loops as a core driver: rethinking organizational readiness for knowledge translation in Iranian medical universities. Health Research Policy and Systems. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-026-01537-7

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1186/s12961-026-01537-7

Keywords: knowledge translation, organizational readiness, feedback loops, implementation science, medical universities, Iran, qualitative study, evidence-based policy, monitoring and evaluation, organizational learning, health policy, Feedback