Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26198428›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2015

A mixed methods study of the factors that influence whether intervention research has policy and practice impacts: perceptions of Australian researchers.

Robyn Newson, Lesley King, Lucie Rychetnik, Adrian E Bauman, Sally Redman, Andrew J Milat, Jacqueline Schroeder, Gillian Cohen, Simon Chapman

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

9 authors.

Robyn NewsonPrevention Research Collaboration, School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Lesley KingPrevention Research Collaboration, School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Lucie RychetnikSchool of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia School of Medicine, University of Notre Dame, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Adrian E BaumanPrevention Research Collaboration, School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Sally RedmanSax Institute, Ultimo, New South Wales, Australia.
Andrew J MilatSchool of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia Centre for Epidemiology and Evidence, NSW Ministry of Health, North Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Jacqueline SchroederSchool of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Gillian CohenSchool of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Simon ChapmanSchool of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo investigate researchers' perceptions about the factors that influenced the policy and practice impacts (or lack of impact) of one of their own funded intervention research studies.

designMixed method, cross-sectional study.

settingIntervention research conducted in Australia and funded by Australia's National Health and Medical Research Council between 2003 and 2007.

participantsThe chief investigators from 50 funded intervention research studies were interviewed to determine if their study had achieved policy and practice impacts, how and why these impacts had (or had not) occurred and the approach to dissemination they had employed.

resultsWe found that statistically significant intervention effects and publication of results influenced whether there were policy and practice impacts, along with factors related to the nature of the intervention itself, the researchers' experience and connections, their dissemination and translation efforts, and the postresearch context.

conclusionsThis study indicates that sophisticated approaches to intervention development, dissemination actions and translational efforts are actually widespread among experienced researches, and can achieve policy and practice impacts. However, it was the links between the intervention results, further dissemination actions by researchers and a variety of postresearch contextual factors that ultimately determined whether a study had policy and practice impacts. Given the complicated interplay between the various factors, there appears to be no simple formula for determining which intervention studies should be funded in order to achieve optimal policy and practice impacts.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchHealth PolicyResearch PersonnelAttitudeAustraliaCross-Sectional StudiesFinancing, GovernmentHumansInformation DisseminationInterviews as TopicPeer Review, ResearchPerceptionProgram EvaluationStatistics as TopicTranslational Research, BiomedicalHealth policyIntervention ResearchKnowledge TransferResearch ImpactTranslational Research

Identifiers

PMID26198428
PMCPMC4513518

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.