SynthesisImplementation science : IS2017
Describing knowledge encounters in healthcare: a mixed studies systematic review and development of a classification.
Synthesis in Implementation science : IS, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Classifying knowledge used in complementary medicine consultations: a qualitative systematic review.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2022Pooled it
- Transforming Health Data to Actionable Information: Recent Progress and Future Opportunities in Health Information Exchange.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2022Pooled it
- Multi-level considerations for optimal implementation of long-acting injectable antiretroviral therapy to treat people living with HIV: perspectives of health care providers participating in phase 3 trials.BMC health services research · 2021Trial
- Locating Medical Information during an Infodemic: Information Seeking Behavior and Strategies of Health-Care Workers in Germany.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- A comment-driven evidence appraisal approach to promoting research findings into practice when only uncertain evidence is available.Health research policy and systems · 2023Article
- Analysis of Spin in RCTs of Spine Surgery Using ORG-LOC Grading Tool.Indian journal of orthopaedics · 2022Article
- Willingness to Treat with Therapies of Unknown Effectiveness in Severe COVID-19: A Survey of Intensivist Physicians.Annals of the American Thoracic Society · 2022Article
- Article
- Article
- Preferences for peer-reviewed versus other publication sources: a survey of general dentists in the National Dental PBRN.Implementation science : IS · 2019Article
- Implementation science: from evidence to practice.Acta medica colombiana : AMC : organo de la Asociacion Columbiana de Medicina InternaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundImplementation science seeks to promote the uptake of research and other evidence-based findings into practice, but for healthcare professionals, this is complex as practice draws on, in addition to scientific principles, rules of thumb and a store of practical wisdom acquired from a range of informational and experiential sources. The aims of this review were to identify sources of information and professional experiences encountered by healthcare workers and from this to build a classification system, for use in future observational studies, that describes influences on how healthcare professionals acquire and use information in their clinical practice.
methodsThis was a mixed studies systematic review of observational studies. DATA SOURCES: OVID MEDLINE and Embase and Google Scholar were searched using terms around information, knowledge or evidence and sharing, searching and utilisation combined with terms relating to healthcare groups. ELIGIBILITY: Studies were eligible if one of the intentions was to identify information or experiential encounters by healthcare workers. DATA EXTRACTION: Data was extracted by one author after piloting with another. STUDY APPRAISAL: Studies were assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). PRIMARY OUTCOME: The primary outcome extracted was the information source or professional experience encounter. ANALYSIS: Similar encounters were grouped together as single constructs. Our synthesis involved a mixed approach using the top-down logic of the Bliss Bibliographic Classification System (BC2) to generate classification categories and a bottom-up approach to develop descriptive codes (or "facets") for each category, from the data. The generic terms of BC2 were customised by an iterative process of thematic content analysis. Facets were developed by using available theory and keeping in mind the pragmatic end use of the classification.
resultsEighty studies were included from which 178 discreet knowledge encounters were extracted. Six classification categories were developed: what information or experience was encountered; how was the information or experience encountered; what was the mode of encounter; from whom did the information originate or with whom was the experience; how many participants were there; and where did the encounter take place. For each of these categories, relevant descriptive facets were identified.
conclusionsWe have sought to identify and classify all knowledge encounters, and we have developed a faceted description of key categories which will support richer descriptions and interrogations of knowledge encounters in healthcare research.
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.