Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30971263›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2019

Programme theory development and formative evaluation of a provincial knowledge translation unit.

Denise Thomson, Stephanie Brooks, Megan Nuspl, Lisa Hartling

Abstract readEvaluation Study
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 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Building capacity for implementation-the KT Challenge.Implementation science communications · 2021
    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

4 authors.

Denise ThomsonAlberta Research Centre for Health Evidence, Department of Pediatrics, University of Alberta and Alberta SPOR SUPPORT UNIT Knowledge Translation Platform, 4-476 Edmonton Clinic Health Academy (ECHA), 11405 87 Ave NW, Edmonton, AB, T6G 1C9, Canada. dthomson@ualberta.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4972-5331
Stephanie BrooksAlberta SPOR SUPPORT UNIT Knowledge Translation Platform, 3-62B Heritage Medical Research Centre (HMRC), 11207 87 Ave NW, Edmonton, AB, T6G 2S2, Canada.
Megan NusplAlberta SPOR SUPPORT UNIT Knowledge Translation Platform, 4-482D Edmonton Clinic Health Academy, 11405 87 Avenue, Edmonton, AB, T6G 1C9, Canada.
Lisa HartlingAlberta Research Centre for Health Evidence, Department of Pediatrics, University of Alberta and Alberta SPOR SUPPORT UNIT Knowledge Translation Platform, 4-476 Edmonton Clinic Health Academy (ECHA), 11405 87 Ave NW, Edmonton, AB, T6G 1C9, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundResearch shows a significant gap between healthcare research and evidence-based healthcare policy and practice. Knowledge translation (KT) has an important role in addressing this gap by bolstering evidence-informed healthcare. Canada's Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR) is a nationally mandated and supported initiative developed to respond to the gap between research and practice. One aspect of SPOR is the provincial/territorial SUpport for People and Patient-Oriented Research and Trials (SUPPORT) Units, intended to assist local health researchers and systems to reach the goal of improving the quality and quantity of patient-oriented research in Canada. This article presents the programme theory development and a formative evaluation of the KT Platform in Alberta's SPOR SUPPORT Unit.

methodsWe used a mixed-methods approach to develop the KT Platform's programme theory and subsequently conducted the formative evaluation. An extensive needs assessment, comprised of 59 qualitative interviews with researchers and health systems employees in Canada with an interest in KT, served as the basis for our programme theory design. Three years after launching the KT Platform, we hired an evaluation consultant to conduct a formative evaluation of the Platform's programme theory and operations. The evaluation was performed by conducting nine interviews with KT Platform service users (n = 6) and KT experts acting in advisory capacities to the KT Platform (n = 3).

resultsThe KT Platform developed a '4C Model' as a summary of the Platform's programme theory. This model is designed to meet local needs for capacity-building, a community of practice, consultation services, and contributions to KT science. This suite of services was found to help the local health system implement health evidence with measurable positive health outcomes. However, the community remains hesitant about their capacity as individuals to design and perform important KT activities independently.

conclusionsWith the mandate and support provided by SPOR, the KT Platform was able to design a strong programme theory based on evidence from an extensive needs assessment of the local community. The resulting 4C Model has provided a framework for KT work to assist in improving local health outcomes and can be considered by others designing KT programmes as a useful model to follow. Ongoing monitoring and assessment are required to continue to identify and respond to local needs.

Indexed as

Evidence-Based PracticeGovernment ProgramsOutcome Assessment, Health CareProgram DevelopmentProgram EvaluationResearch DesignTranslational Research, BiomedicalAlbertaDelivery of Health CareHumansKnowledgeCommunities of practiceEvidence-based decision-makingEvidence-informed practiceFormative evaluationHealth research capacity-buildingHealth research funding agenciesImplementation scienceKnowledge translationNeeds assessmentPatient-oriented research

Identifiers

PMID30971263
PMCPMC6458605

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.