Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21074646›Full record

ReviewNursing outlook

A thematic analysis of theoretical models for translational science in nursing: mapping the field.

Sandra A Mitchell, Cheryl A Fisher, Clare E Hastings, Leanne B Silverman, Gwenyth R Wallen

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Nursing outlook. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed
–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

47 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Perspectives: Envisioning healthcare quality and safety in 2030.Journal of research in nursing : JRN · 2021
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Mapping the Status of Healthcare Improvement Science through a Narrative Review in Six European Countries.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019
    Review
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

5 authors.

Sandra A MitchellNational Institutes of Health, Clinical Center, Bethesda, MD, USA. mitchlls@mail.nih.gov
Cheryl A Fisher
Clare E Hastings
Leanne B Silverman
Gwenyth R Wallen

Funding

Intramural NIH HHS Z99 CA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The quantity and diversity of conceptual models in translational science may complicate rather than advance the use of theory. This paper offers a comparative thematic analysis of the models available to inform knowledge development, transfer, and utilization. Literature searches identified 47 models for knowledge translation. Four thematic areas emerged: (1) evidence-based practice and knowledge transformation processes, (2) strategic change to promote adoption of new knowledge, (3) knowledge exchange and synthesis for application and inquiry, and (4) designing and interpreting dissemination research. This analysis distinguishes the contributions made by leaders and researchers at each phase in the process of discovery, development, and service delivery. It also informs the selection of models to guide activities in knowledge translation. A flexible theoretical stance is essential to simultaneously develop new knowledge and accelerate the translation of that knowledge into practice behaviors and programs of care that support optimal patient outcomes.

Indexed as

Diffusion of InnovationEvidence-Based NursingNursing ResearchTranslational Research, BiomedicalHumansModels, TheoreticalSmoking Cessation

Identifiers

PMID21074646
PMCPMC3011939

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.