Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15142924›Full record

ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2004

Soft networks for bridging the gap between research and practice: illuminative evaluation of CHAIN.

Jill Russell, Trisha Greenhalgh, Petra Boynton, Marcia Rigby

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Email communication at the medical primary-secondary care interface: a qualitative exploration.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2016
    Article
  16. Community Engagement in a complex intervention to improve access to primary mental health care for hard-to-reach groups.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2015
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Jill RussellDepartment of Primary Health Care, University College London, London N19 5LW. j.russell@pcps.ucl.ac.uk
Trisha Greenhalgh
Petra Boynton
Marcia Rigby

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo explore the process of knowledge exchange in an informal email network for evidence based health care, to illuminate the value of the service and its critical success factors, and to identify areas for improvement.

designIlluminative evaluation.

settingTargeted email and networking service for UK healthcare practitioners and researchers.

participants2800 members of a networking service.

main outcome measuresTracking of email messages, interviews with core staff, and a qualitative analysis of messages, postings from focus groups, and invited and unsolicited feedback to the service.

resultsThe informal email network helped to bridge the gap between research and practice by serving as a rich source of information, providing access to members' experiences, suggestions, and ideas, facilitating cross boundary collaboration, and enabling participation in networking at a variety of levels. Ad hoc groupings and communities of practice emerged spontaneously as members discovered common areas of interest.

conclusionThis study illuminated how knowledge for evidence based health care can be targeted, personalised, and made meaningful through informal social processes. Critical success factors include a broad based membership from both the research and service communities; a loose and fluid network structure; tight targeting of messages based on members' interests; the presence of a strong network identity and culture of reciprocity; and the opportunity for new members to learn through passive participation.

Indexed as

Attitude to ComputersElectronic MailEvidence-Based MedicineHealth PersonnelHumansInformation Storage and RetrievalMedical Informatics

Identifiers

PMID15142924
PMCPMC411097

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.