Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30630497›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2019

Barriers and opportunities in the translation of mobile phone and social media interventions between research and health promotion practice in Australia: a qualitative study of expert perspectives.

Cassandra J C Wright, Joanna Schwarzman, Paul M Dietze, Belinda Crockett, Megan S C Lim

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health research policy and systems, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Australian postpartum women want reputable health information delivered via social networking sites.The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. [Digital Applications in the Planning and Implementation of Structural Health Promotion and Prevention Settings: Results of a Scoping Review].Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)) · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. 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

5 authors.

Cassandra J C WrightCentre for Population Health, Burnet Institute, 85 Commercial Rd, Melbourne, Victoria, 3004, Australia. cassandra.wright@burnet.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9751-4005
Joanna SchwarzmanDepartment of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, 99 Commercial Rd, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Paul M DietzeCentre for Population Health, Burnet Institute, 85 Commercial Rd, Melbourne, Victoria, 3004, Australia.
Belinda CrockettDepartment of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, 99 Commercial Rd, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Megan S C LimCentre for Population Health, Burnet Institute, 85 Commercial Rd, Melbourne, Victoria, 3004, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNewer technologies, such as smartphones and social networking sites, offer new opportunities for health promotion interventions. There is evidence to show that these technologies can be effectively and acceptably used for health promotion activities. However, most interventions produced in research do not end up benefitting non-research populations, while the majority of technology-facilitated interventions which are available outside of research settings are either undocumented or have limited or no evidence to support any benefit. We therefore aimed to explore the perspectives of researchers and health promotion experts on efforts to translate technology-facilitated prevention initiatives into practice, and the barriers to achieving translation.

methodsWe utilised a qualitative study design, involving in-depth interviews with researchers experienced with technology-facilitated prevention interventions and prominent health promotion experts.

resultsSome barriers mirror the findings of other studies into health promotion practice, which have found that competing priorities, resource limitations and organisational capacity are important in determining use of evidence in programme planning, engagement in translation and evaluation practice. We add to this literature by describing barriers that are more specifically related to technology-facilitated prevention, such as the pace of developments in technology, and how this clashes with the time taken to develop and ready evidence for translation.

conclusionsIn order to maximise the vast potential of technology-facilitated prevention interventions to promote population health, it is essential that translation is at the forefront of consideration for both researchers and practitioners. We suggest actions that can be taken by both researchers and practitioners to improve translation of technology-facilitated prevention interventions, and also highlight how funding schemes can be modified to facilitate translation.

Indexed as

Cell PhoneSocial MediaSocial NetworkingTechnologyTranslational Research, BiomedicalAustraliaHealth PromotionHumansQualitative ResearchAustraliahealth promotionknowledge translationmobile phonesqualitativesocial media

Identifiers

PMID30630497
PMCPMC6329110

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.