Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29695267›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2018

Evaluation of the "Foundations in Knowledge Translation" training initiative: preparing end users to practice KT.

Jamie S Park, Julia E Moore, Radha Sayal, Bev J Holmes, Gayle Scarrow, Ian D Graham, Lianne Jeffs, Caitlyn Timmings, Shusmita Rashid, Alekhya Mascarenhas Johnson and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science : IS, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

11 authors.

Jamie S ParkLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Julia E MooreLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Radha SayalLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Bev J HolmesMichael Smith Foundation for Health Research, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Gayle ScarrowMichael Smith Foundation for Health Research, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Ian D GrahamUniversity of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Lianne JeffsLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Caitlyn TimmingsLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Shusmita RashidLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Alekhya Mascarenhas JohnsonLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Sharon E StrausLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. sharon.straus@utoronto.ca.

Funding

CIHR 122166
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCurrent knowledge translation (KT) training initiatives are primarily focused on preparing researchers to conduct KT research rather than on teaching KT practice to end users. Furthermore, training initiatives that focus on KT practice have not been rigorously evaluated and have focused on assessing short-term outcomes and participant satisfaction only. Thus, there is a need for longitudinal training evaluations that assess the sustainability of training outcomes and contextual factors that may influence outcomes.

methodsWe evaluated the KT training initiative "Foundations in KT" using a mixed-methods longitudinal design. "Foundations in KT" provided training in KT practice and included three tailored in-person workshops, coaching, and an online platform for training materials and knowledge exchange. Two cohorts were included in the study (62 participants, including 46 "Foundations in KT" participants from 16 project teams and 16 decision-maker partners). Participants completed self-report questionnaires, focus groups, and interviews at baseline and at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after the first workshop.

resultsParticipant-level outcomes include survey results which indicated that participants' self-efficacy in evidence-based practice (F(1,8.9) = 23.7, p = 0.001, n = 45), KT activities (F(1,23.9) = 43.2, p < 0.001, n = 45), and using evidence to inform practice increased over time (F(1,11.0) = 6.0, p = 0.03, n = 45). Interviews and focus groups illustrated that participants' understanding of and confidence in using KT increased from baseline to 24 months after the workshop. Interviews and focus groups suggested that the training initiative helped participants achieve their KT project objectives, plan their projects, and solve problems over time. Contextual factors include teams with high self-reported organizational capacity and commitment to implement at the start of their project had buy-in from upper management that resulted in secured funding and resources for their project. Training initiative outcomes include participants who applied the KT knowledge and skills they learned to other projects by sharing their knowledge informally with coworkers. Sustained spread of KT practice was observed with five teams at 24 months.

conclusionsWe completed a longitudinal evaluation of a KT training initiative. Positive participant outcomes were sustained until 24 months after the initial workshop. Given the emphasis on implementing evidence and the need to train implementers, these findings are promising for future KT training.

Indexed as

KnowledgeSelf EfficacyDiffusion of InnovationFemaleFoundationsHumansLongitudinal StudiesMaleProgram EvaluationTranslational Research, BiomedicalBehavior changeCapacity buildingEducationEvaluationImplementationKnowledgeKnowledge translationLongitudinalMixed methodsSelf-efficacy

Identifiers

PMID29695267
PMCPMC5918493

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.