ArticleSAGE open medicine2014
Development of a measure of knowledge use by stakeholders in rehabilitation technology.
Article in SAGE open medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Factors that influence the adoption of rehabilitation technologies: a multi-disciplinary qualitative exploration.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesUptake of new knowledge by diverse and diffuse stakeholders of health-care technology innovations has been a persistent challenge, as has been measurement of this uptake. This article describes the development of the Level of Knowledge Use Survey instrument, a web-based measure of self-reported knowledge use.
methodsThe Level of Knowledge Use Survey instrument was developed in the context of assessing effectiveness of knowledge communication strategies in rehabilitation technology. It was validated on samples representing five stakeholder types: researchers, manufacturers, clinician-practitioners, knowledge brokers, and consumers. Its structure is broadly based on Rogers' stages of innovation adoption. Its item generation was initially guided by Hall et al's Levels of Use framework. Item selection was based on content validity indices computed from expert ratings (n 1 = 4; n 2 = 3). Five representative stakeholders established usability of the web version. The version included 47 items (content validity index for individual items >0.78; content validity index for a scale or set of items >0.90) in self-reporting format. Psychometrics were then established for the version.
resultsAnalyses of data from small (n = 69) and large (n = 215) samples using the Level of Knowledge Use Survey instrument suggested a conceptual model of four levels of knowledge use-Non-awareness, Awareness, Interest, and Use. The levels covered eight dimensions and six user action categories. The sequential nature of levels was inconclusive due to low cell frequencies. The Level of Knowledge Use Survey instrument showed adequate content validity (≈ 0.88; n = 3) and excellent test-retest reliability (1.0; n = 69). It also demonstrated good construct validity (n = 215) for differentiating among new knowledge outputs (p < 0.001) and among stakeholder types (0.001 < p ≤ 0.013). It showed strong responsiveness to change between baseline and follow-up testing (0.001 < p ≤ 0.002; n = 215).
conclusionThe Level of Knowledge Use Survey instrument is valid and reliable for measuring uptake of innovations across diffuse stakeholders of rehabilitation technologies and therefore also for tracking changes in knowledge use.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.