Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28288695›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2017

Expanding the knowledge translation metaphor.

Eivind Engebretsen, Tony Joakim Sandset, John Ødemark

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health research policy and systems, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
9.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Translating COVID-19: From Contagion to Containment.The Journal of medical humanities · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Eivind EngebretsenInstitute of Health and Society, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, BOX 1130, Blindern, 0318, Oslo, Norway. eivind.engebretsen@medisin.uio.no.
Tony Joakim SandsetDepartment of Cultural Studies and Oriental Languages, Faculty of Humanities, University of Oslo, BOX 1010, Blindern, 0315, Oslo, Norway.
John ØdemarkDepartment of Cultural Studies and Oriental Languages, Faculty of Humanities, University of Oslo, BOX 1010, Blindern, 0315, Oslo, Norway.
University of Oslo · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundKnowledge translation (KT) is a buzzword in modern medical science. However, there has been little theoretical reflection on translation as a process of meaning production in KT. In this paper, we argue that KT will benefit from the incorporation of a more theoretical notion of translation as an entangled material, textual and cultural process. DISCUSSION: We discuss and challenge fundamental assumptions in KT, drawing on theories of translation from the human sciences. We show that the current construal of KT as separate from and secondary to the original scientific message is close to the now deeply compromised literary view of translation as the simple act of copying the original. Inspired by recent theories of translation, we claim that KT can be more adequately understood in terms of a 'double supplement' - on the one hand, KT offers new approaches to the communication of scientific knowledge to different groups in the healthcare system with the aim of supplementing a lack of knowledge among clinicians (and patients). On the other, it demonstrates that a textual and cultural supplement, namely a concern with target audiences (clinicians and patients), is inevitable in the creation of an 'autonomous' science. Hence, the division between science and its translation is unproductive and impossible to maintain. We discuss some possible implications of our suggested shift in concept by drawing on pharmaceutical interventions for the prevention of HIV as a case. We argue that such interventions are based on a supplementary and paradoxical relation to the target audiences, both presupposing and denying their existence. More sophisticated theories of translation can lay the foundation for an expanded model of KT that incorporates a more adequate and reflective description of the interdependency of scientific, cultural, textual and material practices.

Indexed as

Translational Research, BiomedicalEvidence-Based MedicineHumanitiesHumansMetaphorRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSocial SciencesEvidence-based medicineHumanitiesKnowledge translationSocial science

Identifiers

PMID28288695
PMCPMC5348815
OpenAlexW2594941282

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.