Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30788900›Full record

ArticlePharmacoepidemiology and drug safety2020

Building a framework for the evaluation of knowledge translation for the Canadian Network for Observational Drug Effect Studies.

Ingrid S Sketris, Nancy Carter, Robyn L Traynor, Dorian Watts, Kim Kelly, following contributing members of the CNODES Knowledge Translation Team: Pierre Ernst, JM Gamble, Brenda Hemmelgarn, Colleen Metge, Michael Paterson, Robert Platt W. and Gary Teare

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Ingrid S SketrisFaculty of Health Professions, College of Pharmacy, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-1820-5883
Nancy CarterREAL Evaluation Services, Nova Scotia Health Research Foundation, Halifax, Canada.
Robyn L TraynorDepartment of Community Health & Epidemiology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-1386-708X
Dorian WattsREAL Evaluation Services, Nova Scotia Health Research Foundation, Halifax, Canada.
Kim KellyNova Scotia Health Authority, Halifax, Canada.
following contributing members of the CNODES Knowledge Translation Team: Pierre Ernst, JM Gamble, Brenda Hemmelgarn, Colleen Metge, Michael Paterson, Robert Platt W. and Gary Teare
Dalhousie University · CAHealth Research Foundation · CANova Scotia Health Authority · CA

Funding

CIHR DSE-111845CIHR DSE-146021
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe Canadian Network for Observational Drug Effect Studies (CNODES), a network of pharmacoepidemiologists and other researchers from seven provincial sites, provides evidence on the benefits and risks of drugs used by Canadians. The Knowledge Translation Team, one of CNODES' four main teams, evaluates the impact of its efforts using an iterative and emergent approach. This article shares key lessons from early evaluation phases, including identifying stakeholders and their evaluation needs, choosing evaluation theories and approaches, and developing evaluation questions, designs, and methods appropriate for the CNODES context.

methodsStakeholder analysis was conducted using documentary analysis to determine key contextual factors and research evidence needs of decision maker partners and other stakeholders. Selected theories and frameworks from the evaluation and knowledge translation literature informed decisions about evaluation design and implementation. A developmental approach to evaluation was deemed appropriate due to the innovative, complex, and ever-changing context.

resultsA theory of change, logic model, and potential evaluation questions were developed, informed by the stakeholder analysis. Early indicators of program impact (citation metrics, alternative metrics) have been documented; efforts to collect data on additional indicators are ongoing.

conclusionA flexible, iterative, and emergent evaluation approach allows the Knowledge Translation Team to apply lessons learned from completed projects to ongoing research projects, adapt its approaches based on stakeholder needs, document successes, and be accountable to funders/stakeholders. This evaluation approach may be useful for other international pharmacoepidemiology research networks planning and implementing evaluations of similarly complex, multistakeholder initiatives that are subject to constant change.

Indexed as

Models, TheoreticalPharmacovigilanceTranslational Research, BiomedicalCanadaHumansPharmacoepidemiologyProgram EvaluationStakeholder Participationdevelopmental evaluationdrug safetyknowledge translationpharmacoepidemiologyresearch impact

Identifiers

PMID30788900
PMCPMC6972643
OpenAlexW2915558112

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.