Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19754942›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2009

The development, design, testing, refinement, simulation and application of an evaluation framework for communities of practice and social-professional networks.

Jeffrey Braithwaite, Johanna I Westbrook, Geetha Ranmuthugala, Frances Cunningham, Jennifer Plumb, Janice Wiley, Dianne Ball, Sue Huckson, Cliff Hughes, Brian Johnston and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
9.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 66 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Understanding social forces involved in diabetes outcomes: a systems science approach to quality-of-life research.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2014
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Jeffrey BraithwaiteCentre for Clinical Governance Research, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia. j.braithwaite@unsw.edu.au
Johanna I Westbrook
Geetha Ranmuthugala
Frances Cunningham
Jennifer Plumb
Janice Wiley
Dianne Ball
Sue Huckson
Cliff Hughes
Brian Johnston
Joanne Callen
Nerida Creswick
Andrew Georgiou
Luc Betbeder-Matibet
Deborah Debono
UNSW Sydney · AUUniversity of Sydney · AUAustralian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care · AUMacquarie University · AUMental Health Commission · AUNational Health and Medical Research Council · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCommunities of practice and social-professional networks are generally considered to enhance workplace experience and enable organizational success. However, despite the remarkable growth in interest in the role of collaborating structures in a range of industries, there is a paucity of empirical research to support this view. Nor is there a convincing model for their systematic evaluation, despite the significant potential benefits in answering the core question: how well do groups of professionals work together and how could they be organised to work together more effectively? This research project will produce a rigorous evaluation methodology and deliver supporting tools for the benefit of researchers, policymakers, practitioners and consumers within the health system and other sectors. Given the prevalence and importance of communities of practice and social networks, and the extent of investments in them, this project represents a scientific innovation of national and international significance. METHODS AND

designWorking in four conceptual phases the project will employ a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods to develop, design, field-test, refine and finalise an evaluation framework. Once available the framework will be used to evaluate simulated, and then later existing, health care communities of practice and social-professional networks to assess their effectiveness in achieving desired outcomes. Peak stakeholder groups have agreed to involve a wide range of members and participant organisations, and will facilitate access to various policy, managerial and clinical networks. DISCUSSION: Given its scope and size, the project represents a valuable opportunity to achieve breakthroughs at two levels; firstly, by introducing novel and innovative aims and methods into the social research process and, secondly, through the resulting evaluation framework and tools. We anticipate valuable outcomes in the improved understanding of organisational performance and delivery of care. The project's wider appeal lies in transferring this understanding to other health jurisdictions and to other industries and sectors, both nationally and internationally. This means not merely publishing the results, but contextually interpreting them, and translating them to advance the knowledge base and enable widespread institutional and organisational application.

Indexed as

Cooperative BehaviorInterprofessional RelationsProgram DevelopmentProgram EvaluationAustraliaHealth PersonnelHumansSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID19754942
PMCPMC2751758
OpenAlexW2013138604

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.