Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26387085›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2015

Beyond bridging the know-do gap: a qualitative study of systemic interaction to foster knowledge exchange in the public health sector in The Netherlands.

Francine van den Driessen Mareeuw, Lenneke Vaandrager, Laurens Klerkx, Jenneken Naaldenberg, Maria Koelen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. From public health to public good: Toward universal wellbeing.Scandinavian journal of public health · 2022
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

5 authors.

Francine van den Driessen MareeuwRadboud University Medical Center, Department of Primary and Community Care, Geert Grooteplein 21, 6525 EZ, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. favddm@gmail.com.
Lenneke VaandragerHealth and Society Group, Department of Social Sciences, Wageningen University, Hollandseweg 1, 6706 KN, Wageningen, The Netherlands. lenneke.vaandrager@wur.nl.
Laurens KlerkxKnowledge, Technology and Innovation Group, Department of Social Sciences, Wageningen University, Hollandseweg 1, 6706 KN, Wageningen, The Netherlands. laurens.klerkx@wur.nl.
Jenneken NaaldenbergRadboud University Medical Center, Department of Primary and Community Care, Geert Grooteplein 21, 6525 EZ, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. jenneken.naaldenberg@radboudumc.nl.
Maria KoelenHealth and Society Group, Department of Social Sciences, Wageningen University, Hollandseweg 1, 6706 KN, Wageningen, The Netherlands. maria.koelen@wur.nl.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite considerable attention currently being given to facilitating the use of research results in public health practice, several concerns remain, resulting in the so-called know-do gap. This article aims to identify the key tensions causing the know-do gap from a broad perspective by using a systemic approach and considering the public health sector as an innovation system.

methodsAn exploratory qualitative design including in-depth semi-structured interviews was used, with 33 interviewees from different actor categories in the Dutch public health innovation system. The analyses employed an innovation system matrix to highlight the principal tensions causing the know-do gap.

resultsSeven key tensions were identified, including: research priorities determined by powerful players; no consensus about criteria for knowledge quality; different perceptions about the knowledge broker role; competition engendering fragmentation; thematic funding engendering fragmentation; predominance of passive knowledge sharing; and lack of capacity among users to use and influence research.

conclusionsThe identified tensions indicate that bridging the know-do gap requires much more than linking research to practice or translating knowledge. An innovation system perspective is crucial in providing information on the total picture of knowledge exchange within the Dutch public health sector. Such a system includes broader stakeholder involvement as well as the creation of social, economic, and contextual conditions (achieving shared visions, building networks, institutional change, removing financial and infrastructural barriers), as these create conducive factors at several system levels and induce knowledge co-creation and innovation.

Indexed as

Diffusion of InnovationPublic Health AdministrationHumansInterviews as TopicLeadershipNetherlandsQualitative ResearchTranslational Research, Biomedical

Identifiers

PMID26387085
PMCPMC4575438

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.