Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21637708›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of integrated care2011

Use of a knowledge synthesis by decision makers and planners to facilitate system level integration in a large Canadian provincial health authority.

Esther Suter, Gail D Armitage

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of integrated care, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

2 authors.

Esther SuterHealth Systems and Workforce Research Unit, Health Professions Strategy and Practice, Alberta Health Services, 10301 Southport Lane SW, Calgary, AB, T2W 1S7, Canada.
Gail D Armitage

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe study is an examination of how a knowledge synthesis, conducted to fill an information gap identified by decision makers and planners responsible for integrating health systems in a western Canadian health authority, is being used within that organization.

methodsPurposive sampling and snowball technique were used to identify 13 participants who were interviewed about how they are using the knowledge synthesis for health services planning and decision-making.

resultsThe knowledge synthesis is used by those involved in the strategic direction of the provincial healthcare organization and those tasked with the operationalization of integration at the provincial or local level. Both groups most frequently use the 10 key principles for integration, followed by the sections on integration processes, strategies and models. The key principles facilitate discussion on priority areas to be considered and provide a reference point for a desired future state. Perceived information gaps relate to a lack of detail on 'how to' strategies, tools and processes that would lead to successful integration. DISCUSSION AND

conclusionThe current project demonstrates that decision makers and planners will effectively use a knowledge synthesis if it is timely, relevant and accessible. The information can be applied at strategic and operations levels. Attention needs to be paid to include more information on implementation strategies and processes. Including knowledge users in identifying research questions will increase information uptake.

Indexed as

community health centresdecision makers and plannershealth systems integrationintegrated seniors healthknowledge synthesis uptakeknowledge translation

Identifiers

PMID21637708
PMCPMC3107086

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.