Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28382582›Full record

ArticleTranslational behavioral medicine2017

Building practitioner networks to support dissemination and implementation of evidence-based programs in community settings.

Shoba Ramanadhan, Sara Minsky, Vilma Martinez-Dominguez, Kasisomayajula Viswanath

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Translational behavioral medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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.

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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Shoba RamanadhanCenter for Community-Based Research, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, 450 Brookline Ave, LW 601, Boston, MA, 02215, USA. shoba_ramanadhan@dfci.harvard.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-0650-9433
Sara MinskyCenter for Community-Based Research, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, 450 Brookline Ave, LW 601, Boston, MA, 02215, USA.
Vilma Martinez-DominguezHarvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Ave, Boston, MA, 02215, USA.
Kasisomayajula ViswanathHarvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Ave, Boston, MA, 02215, USA.

Funding

U Mass Boston / DFHCC U54 Partnership (1 of 2)U54CA156732 · NCI · DANA-FARBER CANCER INST · PI KASISOMAYAJULA VISWANATH · 2010 to 2026
$25.6M
UMass Boston-DF/HCC U54 Partnership (2 of 2)U54CA156734 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS BOSTON · PI Jan Mutchler · 2010 to 2026
$24.9M
P.L.A.N.E.T. MassCONECT to Promote Evidence-Based InterventionsR01CA132651 · NCI · DANA-FARBER CANCER INST · PI VISWANATH, KASISOMAYAJULA · 2008 to 2012
$3.4M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA132651NCI NIH HHS U54 CA156732NCI NIH HHS U54 CA156734
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Insufficient capacity to use evidence-based programs (EBPs) limits the impact of community-based organizations (CBOs) to improve population health and address health disparities. PLANET MassCONECT was a community-based participatory research (CBPR) project conducted in three Massachusetts communities. Researchers and practitioners co-created an intervention to build capacity among CBO staff members to systematically find, adapt, and evaluate EBPs. The project supported development of trainee social networks and this cross-sectional study examines the association between network engagement and EBP usage, an important goal of the capacity-building program. Trainee cohorts were enrolled from June 2010 to April 2012 and we collected community-specific network data in late 2013. The relationship of interest was communication among network members regarding the systematic approach to program planning presented in the intervention. For Communities A, B, and C, 39/59, 36/61, and 50/59 trainees responded to our survey, respectively. We conducted the full network analysis in Community C. The average degree, or number of connections with other trainees, is a useful marker of engagement; respondents averaged 6.6 reported connections. Degree was associated with recent use of EBPs, in a linear regression, adjusting for important covariates. The results call for further attention to practitioner networks that support the use of research evidence in community settings. Consideration of key contextual factors, including resource levels, turnover rates, and community complexity will be vital for success.

Indexed as

Capacity BuildingCommunity NetworksEvidence-Based PracticeHealth PromotionAdultCohort StudiesCommunity-Based Participatory ResearchCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHealth Plan ImplementationHumansInformation DisseminationLinear ModelsMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesCommunity-based organizationsCommunity-based participatory researchDisseminationEvidence-based programsImplementationSocial network analysis

Identifiers

PMID28382582
PMCPMC5645279

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.