Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30700316›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2019

Understanding professional advice networks in long-term care: an outside-inside view of best practice pathways for diffusion.

Lisa A Cranley, Janice M Keefe, Deanne Taylor, Genevieve Thompson, Amanda M Beacom, Janet E Squires, Carole A Estabrooks, James W Dearing, Peter G Norton, Whitney B Berta

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science : IS, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. 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

10 authors.

Lisa A CranleyLawrence S. Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. lisa.cranley@utoronto.ca.ORCID 0000-0002-3308-7558
Janice M KeefeNova Scotia Centre on Aging and Department of Family Studies and Gerontology, Mount Saint Vincent University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Deanne TaylorResearch Department, Interior Health Authority, Kelowna British Columbia and School of Nursing, Faculty of Health and Social Development, University of British Columbia (Okanagan campus), Kelowna, BC, Canada.
Genevieve ThompsonRady Faculty of Health Sciences, College of Nursing, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
Amanda M BeacomCarroll School of Management, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA, USA.
Janet E SquiresOttawa Hospital Research Institute and Faculty of Health Sciences, School of Nursing, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Carole A EstabrooksFaculty of Nursing, University of Alberta, Edmonton Clinic Health Academy, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
James W DearingDepartment of Communication, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA.
Peter G NortonDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Whitney B BertaDalla Lana School of Public Health, Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

CIHR MOP#318861
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInterpersonal relationships among professionals drive both the adoption and rejection of consequential innovations. Through relationships, decision-makers learn which colleagues are choosing to adopt innovations, and why. The purpose of our study was to understand how and why long-term care (LTC) leaders in a pan-Canadian interpersonal network provide and seek advice about care improvement innovations, for the eventual dissemination and implementation of these innovations.

methodsWe used a mixed methods approach. An online survey was sent to senior leaders in 958 LTC facilities in 11 Canadian provinces and territories. Participants were asked to name up to three individuals whose advice they most value when considering care improvement and practice innovations. Sociometric analysis revealed the structure of provincial-level advice networks and how those networks were linked. Using sociometric indicators, we purposively selected 39 key network actors to interview to explore the nature of advice relationships. Data were analyzed thematically.

resultsIn this paper, we report our qualitative findings. We identified four themes from the data. One theme related to characteristics of particular network roles: opinion leaders, advice seekers, and boundary spanners. Opinion leaders and boundary spanners have long tenures in LTC, a broad knowledge of the network, and share an interest in advancing the sector. Advice seekers were similarly committed to LTC; they initially seek and then, over time, exchange advice with opinion leaders and become an important source of information for them. A second theme related to characterizing advice seeking relationships as formal, peer-to-peer, mentoring, or reciprocal. The third and fourth themes described motivations for providing and seeking advice, and the nature of advice given and sought. Advice seekers initially sought information to resolve clinical care problems; however, over time, the nature of advice sought expanded to include operational and strategic queries. Opinion leaders sought to expand their networks and to solicit information from their more established advice seekers that might benefit the network and advance LTC.

conclusionsNew knowledge about the distinct roles that different network actors play vis-a-vis one another offers healthcare professionals, researchers, and decision- and policy-makers insights that are useful when formulating best practice dissemination strategies.

Indexed as

Diffusion of InnovationInterprofessional RelationsAttitude of Health PersonnelCanadaCounselingFemaleHumansInformation Seeking BehaviorInterviews as TopicLeadershipLong-Term CareMaleMedical InformaticsMotivationProfessional PracticeDiffusion of innovationsLong-term care sectorMixed methodsProfessional advice seeking networks

Identifiers

PMID30700316
PMCPMC6354382

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.