There is a ‘need to know’ for people who have acquired a spinal cord injury (SCI) and a ‘lack of knowledge’ is considered to be a barrier to coping with SCI. In-patient SCI care and rehabilitation have emphasized that information should be provided in the right amounts, at the right place and at the right time. Such needs and timing probably go beyond initial care and rehabilitation. Likewise, there is also, reasonably a need for knowledge for other groups of people meeting people with SCI, such as relatives, health professionals and personal care assistants1 as well as authorities, decision-makers, employers, architects and city planners etc. Our recent work, shows that more evidence is needed regarding the provision of specialist expertise in SCI by care services and to what extent they are therefore able to respond to the needs of people living with SCI. A Swedish need assessment project, including a priority setting partnership (PSP2 ) according to James Lind Alliance, has been implemented nationwide 2021–22 to address the needs which are most important for people with SCI to enhance their lives. The Swedish need assessment project comprises three parts: (a) needs to be met; (b) questions to be answered; (c) knowledge required. In part (b), which is the PSP we have identified research priorities (e.g. knowledge gaps); while in part (c), presented here, we report results from an online survey addressing knowledge translation gaps in order to shed light on the knowledge that is available yet which does not reach out. An online survey was released in November–December 2021 with people with SCI, relatives of people with SCI and health professionals and care assistants working with people with SCI. This survey included an open-ended question concerning knowledge translation gaps – what kind of knowledge is lacking and who needs the knowledge. In total, 242 persons responded the survey. Table 1 provides personal characteristics. Each respondent could state one to five knowledge needs, resulting in 480 inputs (statements with more than one need were treated separately in the total number of inputs). However, 84 statements were removed due to beyond the scope of the study (e.g., addressing general needs not related to needs for knowledge). The statements where further complemented with 64 statements from the PSP question (where these were asked for issues which were difficult to find answers to). Thus, this report is based on a total of 459 statements included in this study.