Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31186014›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2019

Applying the Theoretical Domains Framework to understand knowledge broker decisions in selecting evidence for knowledge translation in low- and middle-income countries.

Theresa C Norton, Daniela C Rodriguez, Sara Willems

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 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. 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

3 authors.

Theresa C NortonJhpiego, 1615 Thames Street, Baltimore, MD, 21231, United States of America. theresa.norton@jhpiego.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6716-9749
Daniela C RodriguezDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 N. Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD, 21205, United States of America.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2523-1123
Sara WillemsDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Ghent University, Campus UZ, K3, 6de verdieping, Corneel Heymanslaan 10, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6349-7785

Funding

United States Agency for International Development AID-OAA-A-14-00028
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth-related organisations disseminate an abundance of clinical and implementation evidence that has potential to improve health outcomes in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), but little is known about what influences a user decision to select particular evidence for action. Knowledge brokers (KBs) play a part as intermediaries supporting evidence-informed health policy and practice by selecting and synthesising evidence for research users, and therefore understanding the basis for KB decisions, can help inform knowledge translation strategies. The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), a synthesis of psychological theories, was selected as a promising analysis approach because of its widespread use in identifying influences on decisions to act on evidence-based healthcare guidelines. This study explored its application in the context of KB decisions regarding evidence for use in LMICs.

methodsThe study analysed data collected from participants of a 2015 global maternal and newborn health conference in Mexico. A total of 324 conference participants from 56 countries completed an online survey and 20 from 15 countries were interviewed about evidence use and sharing after the conference. TDF domains and constructs were retrospectively applied and adapted during coding of qualitative data to enhance understanding of the KB decision process in selecting evidence for action.

resultsApplication of the TDF involved challenges related to overlapping constructs, retrospective use, and complexities of global health settings and relevant knowledge. Codes needed to be added or adapted to account for how KBs' internal reflections on external factors influenced their actions in selecting evidence to share and use, and the decisions they made during the process. Four themes of the rationale for changing the TDF were identified during analysis, namely Influences from Beyond the Organisation, Knowledge Selection as a Process, Access and Packaging of Knowledge, and Fit for Use.

conclusionsTheories of individual behaviour, such as those in the TDF, can enhance understanding of the decisions made by actors such as KBs along dissemination and knowledge translation pathways. Understanding how KBs reflect on evidence and interact with their environment has the potential for improving global dissemination efforts and LMIC-to-LMIC exchange of implementation evidence.

Indexed as

ConsultantsDecision MakingDeveloping CountriesEvidence-Based PracticeHealth PersonnelOccupationsTranslational Research, BiomedicalHumansInfant, NewbornKnowledgeProfessional RoleResearchbarriersfacilitatorsKnowledge brokersknowledge translationlow- and middle-income countriestheoretical domains framework

Identifiers

PMID31186014
PMCPMC6560763

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.