The last decade has seen significant growth in scientific understanding and public awareness of autism. There is still a long road ahead before this awareness can be matched with parallel improvements in evidence-based practice. The process of translating evidence into community care has been hampered by the seeming disconnect between the mainstream scientific research agenda and the immediate priorities of many communities. The need for community engagement in the process of translating knowledge into impact has been recognized. However, there remains little consensus or empirical data regarding the process of such engagement and how to measure its impact. We shed light on a number of engagement models and tools, previously advocated in health research, as they apply to autism research. Furthermore, we illustrate the utility of such tools in supporting identification of knowledge gaps and priorities, using two community-based case studies. The case studies illustrate that information generated from research is indeed relevant and critical for knowledge users in the community. Simple and systematic methods can support the translation and uptake of knowledge in diverse communities, therefore enhancing engagement with research and bridging research findings with immediate community needs.

Participants identified multiple reasons for delays and strategies to counter them. Knowledge about gaps in the OA care process can facilitate physiotherapists' participation in developing strategies for early intervention.

Background Efforts to augment post‐stroke upper limb (UL) motor improvement include the use of newer interventions such as noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) and task practice in virtual reality environments (VEs). Despite increasing interest in using a combination of these 2 interventions, the effectiveness of this combination to enhance UL motor improvement outcomes has not been examined. Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of a combination of NIBS and task practice in a VE to augment post‐stroke UL motor improvement. Methods We conducted a systematic search of the published literature using standard methodology. The Down and Black checklist and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database Research Organization Scale were used to assess study quality. We compared changes in UL impairment and activity levels between active stimulation and sham or other interventions using standardized mean differences and derived a summary effect size. Results We retrieved 5 studies that examined the role of a combination of NIBS and task practice in a VE to optimize UL motor improvement. These 5 studies included 3 randomized controlled trials, 1 cross‐sectional study, and 1 crossover study. There was level 1a evidence that the combination was beneficial in subacute stroke. There was level 1b evidence that provision of real stimulation was not superior to sham stimulation in chronic stroke. Effect sizes favoring the combination were moderate for improvements in UL impairment and small for activity levels. Conclusions Preliminary evidence supports the effectiveness of this combination in subacute stroke. Emergent questions need to be addressed to derive maximum benefit of this combination to augment post‐stroke UL motor improvement. Level of Evidence I

No abstract