Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26888017›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2016

Translating a health service intervention into a rural setting: lessons learned.

Elsa Dent, Elizabeth Hoon, Alison Kitson, Jonathan Karnon, Jonathan Newbury, Gillian Harvey, Tiffany K Gill, Lauren Gillis, Justin Beilby

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Continuity Is Essential: The Experiences of Co-Design Participants During the Implementation of a New Health Service.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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.

Elsa DentDiscipline of Public Health, School of Public Health, The University of Adelaide, South Australia, Australia. e.dent@uq.edu.au.
Elizabeth HoonDiscipline of Public Health, School of Public Health, The University of Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Alison KitsonSchool of Nursing, The University of Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Jonathan KarnonDiscipline of Public Health, School of Public Health, The University of Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Jonathan NewburyDiscipline of Rural Health, School of Medicine, The University of Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Gillian HarveySchool of Nursing, The University of Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Tiffany K GillDiscipline of Medicine, School of Medicine, The University of Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Lauren GillisDiscipline of Public Health, School of Public Health, The University of Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Justin BeilbyDiscipline of Public Health, School of Public Health, The University of Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLimited research exists on the process of applying knowledge translation (KT) methodology to a rural-based population health intervention.

methodsThis study reports on the implementation and translational stages of a previously described Co-creating KT (Co-KT) framework in the rural town of Port Lincoln, South Australia (population: 14,000). The Co-KT framework involves five steps: (i) collecting local data; (ii) building stakeholder relationships; (iii) designing an evidence-based intervention incorporating local knowledge; (iv) implementation and evaluation of the intervention; and (v) translating the research into policy and practice. Barriers and enablers to the overall Co-KT implementation process were identified. Our intervention focused on musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions.

resultsAlthough the Co-KT framework was valuable in engaging with the community, translating the final intervention into daily clinical practice was prevented by a lack of an accessible policy or financial framework to anchor the appropriate intervention, a lack of continued engagement with stakeholders, access problems to general practitioners (GPs) and Allied Health Professionals; and the paucity of referrals from GPs to Allied Health Professionals. Consequently, while many aspects of the intervention were successful, including the improvement of both function and pain in study participants, the full implementation of the Co-KT framework was not possible. DISCUSSION: This study implemented and evaluated a Co-KT framework for a population with MSK conditions, linking locally generated health care system knowledge with academic input. Further policy, health system changes, and on-the-ground support are needed to overcome the identified implementation challenges in order to create sustainable and effective system change.

Indexed as

Translational Research, BiomedicalAdultDelivery of Health CareEvidence-Based PracticeFemaleGeneral PracticeHealth Care ReformHealth PolicyHealth Services AccessibilityHumansInterprofessional RelationsLongitudinal StudiesMaleMusculoskeletal DiseasesRural Health ServicesSouth Australia

Identifiers

PMID26888017
PMCPMC4758176

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.