Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26443999›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2015

Why (we think) facilitation works: insights from organizational learning theory.

Whitney Berta, Lisa Cranley, James W Dearing, Elizabeth J Dogherty, Janet E Squires, Carole A Estabrooks

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science : IS, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05247333 (Implementation, Integration and Sustainability of a Minor Ailment Service in Usual Practice of Community Pharmacy), which is not on this map. Cited by 128 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
128citing 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.

NCT05247333 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2020, after this paper: background citation

Implementation, Integration and Sustainability of a Minor Ailment Service in Usual Practice of Community Pharmacy

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversidad de GranadaRan2020 to 2023Enrolled20,987ConditionsAcne, Bites, Burns, ColdArmsMinor ailment service
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

68 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

6 authors.

Whitney BertaInstitute of Health Policy, Management & Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, 155 College Street, 4th Floor, Toronto, Ontario, M5T 3M6, Canada. whit.berta@utoronto.ca.
Lisa CranleyLawrence S. Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. lisa.cranley@utoronto.ca.
James W DearingCollege for Communication Arts & Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA. dearjim@msu.edu.
Elizabeth J DoghertySt. Paul's Hospital, Providence Health Care, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Elizabeth.dogherty@queensu.ca.
Janet E SquiresSchool of Nursing, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada. jasquires@ohri.ca.
Carole A EstabrooksFaculty of Nursing, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. cestabro@ualberta.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFacilitation is a guided interactional process that has been popularized in health care. Its popularity arises from its potential to support uptake and application of scientific knowledge that stands to improve clinical and managerial decision-making, practice, and ultimately patient outcomes and organizational performance. While this popular concept has garnered attention in health services research, we know that both the content of facilitation and its impact on knowledge implementation vary. The basis of this variation is poorly understood, and understanding is hampered by a lack of conceptual clarity. DISCUSSION: In this paper, we argue that our understanding of facilitation and its effects is limited in part by a lack of clear theoretical grounding. We propose a theoretical home for facilitation in organizational learning theory. Referring to extant literature on facilitation and drawing on theoretical literature, we discuss the features of facilitation that suggest its role in contributing to learning capacity. We describe how facilitation may contribute to generating knowledge about the application of new scientific knowledge in health-care organizations. Facilitation's promise, we suggest, lies in its potential to stimulate higher-order learning in organizations through experimenting with, generating learning about, and sustaining small-scale adaptations to organizational processes and work routines. The varied effectiveness of facilitation observed in the literature is associated with the presence or absence of factors known to influence organizational learning, since facilitation itself appears to act as a learning mechanism. We offer propositions regarding the relationships between facilitation processes and key organizational learning concepts that have the potential to guide future work to further our understanding of the role that facilitation plays in learning and knowledge generation.

Indexed as

Diffusion of InnovationLearningOrganizational InnovationProblem SolvingHealth Services ResearchHumans

Identifiers

PMID26443999
PMCPMC4596304

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.