ArticleImplementation science : IS2009
Is research working for you? Validating a tool to examine the capacity of health organizations to use research.
Article in Implementation science : IS, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
37 citing papers in PubMed.
- Increasing the capacity of policy agencies to use research findings: a stepped-wedge trial.Health research policy and systems · 2019Trial
- Understanding evidence: a statewide survey to explore evidence-informed public health decision-making in a local government setting.Implementation science : IS · 2014Trial
- An exploratory cluster randomised controlled trial of knowledge translation strategies to support evidence-informed decision-making in local governments (The KT4LG study).BMC public health · 2011Trial
- Article
- A framework of evidence-based decision-making in health system management: a best-fit framework synthesis.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2022Article
- A pragmatic evaluation of a public health knowledge broker mentoring education program: a convergent mixed methods study.Implementation science communications · 2022Article
- Assessing organisational capacity for evidence-informed health policy and planning: an adaptation of the ORACLe tool for Australian primary health care organizations.Health research policy and systems · 2021Article
- Patterns and correlates of mis-implementation in state chronic disease public health practice in the United States.BMC public health · 2021Article
- Evaluation of the performance and achievements of the WHO Evidence-informed Policy Network (EVIPNet) Europe.Health research policy and systems · 2020Article
- Measuring Community-Engaged Research Contexts, Processes, and Outcomes: A Mapping Review.The Milbank quarterly · 2020Review
- [Institutionalizing evidence-based policies in BrazilInstitucionalización de las políticas informadas por evidencia].Revista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health · 2020Article
- Organisational factors that facilitate research use in public health policy-making: a scoping review.Health research policy and systems · 2019Article
- Impact of an organization-wide knowledge translation strategy to support evidence-informed public health decision making.BMC public health · 2018Article
- Development of measurable indicators to enhance public health evidence-informed policy-making.Health research policy and systems · 2018Article
- Assessment of policy makers' individual and organizational capacity to acquire, assess, adapt and apply research evidence for maternal and child health policy making in Nigeria: a cross-sectional quantitative survey.African health sciences · 2017Article
- Assessing the capacity of ministries of health to use research in decision-making: conceptual framework and tool.Health research policy and systems · 2017Article
- A Qualitative Assessment of the Evidence Utilization for Health Policy-Making on the Basis of SUPPORT Tools in a Developing Country.International journal of health policy and management · 2017Article
- An Assessment of National Maternal and Child Health Policy-Makers' Knowledge and Capacity for Evidence- Informed Policy-Making in Nigeria.International journal of health policy and management · 2017Article
- Knowledge-exchange in the Pacific: outcomes of the TROPIC (translational research for obesity prevention in communities) project.BMC public health · 2017Article
- Development and validation of SEER (Seeking, Engaging with and Evaluating Research): a measure of policymakers' capacity to engage with and use research.Health research policy and systems · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background'Is research working for you? A self-assessment tool and discussion guide for health services management and policy organizations', developed by the Canadian Health Services Research Foundation, is a tool that can help organizations understand their capacity to acquire, assess, adapt, and apply research. Objectives were to: determine whether the tool demonstrated response variability; describe how the tool differentiated between organizations that were known to be lower-end or higher-end research users; and describe the potential usability of the tool.
methodsThirty-two focus groups were conducted among four sectors of Canadian health organizations. In the first hour of the focus group, participants individually completed the tool and then derived a group consensus ranking on items. In the second hour, the facilitator asked about overall impressions of the tool, to identify insights that emerged during the review of items on the tool and to elicit comments on research utilization. Discussion data were analyzed qualitatively, and individual and consensus item scores were analyzed using descriptive and non-parametric statistics.
resultsThe tool demonstrated good usability and strong response variability. Differences between higher-end and lower-end research use organizations on scores suggested that this tool has adequate discriminant validity. The group discussion based on the tool was the more useful aspect of the exercise, rather than the actual score assigned.
conclusionThe tool can serve as a catalyst for an important discussion about research use at the organizational level; such a discussion, in and of itself, demonstrates potential as an intervention to encourage processes and supports for research translation.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.