Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28390421›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2017

Organizational supports used by private child and family serving agencies to facilitate evidence use: a mixed methods study protocol.

Emmeline Chuang, Crystal Collins-Camargo, Bowen McBeath

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article 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 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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 3 institutions in 1 country.

Emmeline ChuangDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Fielding School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles, 650 Charles E Young Dr. South, Los Angeles, CA, 90095-1772, USA. emchuang@ucla.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-9227-3273
Crystal Collins-CamargoKent School of Social Work, University of Louisville, 2217 S. Third Street, Louisville, KY, 40292, USA.
Bowen McBeathSchool of Social Work, Portland State University, PO Box 751, Portland, OR, 97207, USA.
Portland State University · USUniversity of California, Los Angeles · USUniversity of Louisville · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChallenges to evidence use are well documented. Less well understood are the formal supports-e.g., technical infrastructure, inter-organizational relationships-organizations may put in place to help overcome these challenges. This study will identify supports for evidence use currently used by private child and family serving agencies delivering publicly funded behavioral health and/or human services; examine contextual, organizational, and managerial factors associated with use of such supports; and determine how identified supports affect evidence use by staff at multiple levels of the organization.

methodsWe will use a sequential explanatory mixed methods design, with study activities occurring in two sequential phases: In phase 1, quantitative survey data collected from managers of private child and family serving agencies in six states (CA, IN, KY, MO, PA, and WI) and analyzed using both regression and qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) will identify organizational supports currently being used to facilitate evidence use and examine the contextual, organizational, and managerial factors associated with the use of such supports. In phase 2, data from phase 1 will be used to select a purposive sample of 12 agencies for in-depth case studies. In those 12 agencies, semi-structured interviews with key informants and managers, focus groups with frontline staff, and document analysis will provide further insight into agencies' motivation for investing in organizational supports for evidence use and the facilitators and barriers encountered in doing so. Semi-structured interviews with managers and focus groups with frontline staff will also assess whether and how identified supports affect evidence use at different levels of the organization (senior executives, middle managers, frontline supervisors, and frontline staff). Within- and between-case analyses supplemented by QCA will identify combinations of factors associated with the highest and lowest levels of staff evidence use. DISCUSSION: This study will inform efforts to improve sustainment, scale-up, and spread of evidence by providing insight into organizational and managerial strategies that facilitate evidence use, the contexts in which these strategies are most effective, and their effect on evidence use by staff at different levels of the organization.

Indexed as

Evidence-Based MedicineAdolescentChildChild Health ServicesDelivery of Health CareFamily HealthFocus GroupsHome Care AgenciesHumansInterview, PsychologicalOrganizational CulturePrivate SectorSocial SupportChildren and adolescentsEvidence useMixed methodsOrganizational supports

Identifiers

PMID28390421
PMCPMC5385079
OpenAlexW2605205791

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.