Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32131861›Full record

ReviewImplementation science : IS2020

Knowledge translation strategies for dissemination with a focus on healthcare recipients: an overview of systematic reviews.

Evelina Chapman, Michelle M Haby, Tereza Setsuko Toma, Maritsa Carla de Bortoli, Eduardo Illanes, Maria Jose Oliveros, Jorge O Maia Barreto

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Implementation science : IS, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–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

52 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Strategies to promote the dissemination of psychosocial digital health resources for those affected by cancer: scoping review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

7 authors.

Evelina ChapmanFundação Oswaldo Cruz, Fiocruz, Brasília, Brazil.
Michelle M HabyDepartamento de Ciencias Químico Biológicas, Universidad de Sonora, Hermosillo, Sonora, Mexico. haby@unimelb.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0001-6203-9195
Tereza Setsuko TomaInstituto de Saúde, Secretaria de Estado da Saúde de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Maritsa Carla de BortoliInstituto de Saúde, Secretaria de Estado da Saúde de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Eduardo IllanesSchool of Psychology Universidad Mayor, Santiago, Chile.
Maria Jose OliverosDepartamento de Medicina Interna, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de La Frontera, Temuco, Chile.
Jorge O Maia BarretoFundação Oswaldo Cruz, Fiocruz, Brasília, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhile there is an ample literature on the evaluation of knowledge translation interventions aimed at healthcare providers, managers, and policy-makers, there has been less focus on patients and their informal caregivers. Further, no overview of the literature on dissemination strategies aimed at healthcare users and their caregivers has been conducted. The overview has two specific research questions: (1) to determine the most effective strategies that have been used to disseminate knowledge to healthcare recipients, and (2) to determine the barriers (and facilitators) to dissemination of knowledge to this group.

methodsThis overview used systematic review methods and was conducted according to a pre-defined protocol. A comprehensive search of ten databases and five websites was conducted. Both published and unpublished reviews in English, Spanish, or Portuguese were included. A methodological quality assessment was conducted; low-quality reviews were excluded. A narrative synthesis was undertaken, informed by a matrix of strategy by outcome measure. The Health System Evidence taxonomy for "consumer targeted strategies" was used to separate strategies into one of six categories.

resultsWe identified 44 systematic reviews that describe the effective strategies to disseminate health knowledge to the public, patients, and caregivers. Some of these reviews also describe the most important barriers to the uptake of these effective strategies. When analyzing those strategies with the greatest potential to achieve behavioral changes, the majority of strategies with sufficient evidence of effectiveness were combined, frequent, and/or intense over time. Further, strategies focused on the patient, with tailored interventions, and those that seek to acquire skills and competencies were more effective in achieving these changes. In relation to barriers and facilitators, while the lack of health literacy or e-literacy could increase inequities, the benefits of social media were also emphasized, for example by widening access to health information for ethnic minorities and lower socioeconomic groups.

conclusionsThose interventions that have been shown to be effective in improving knowledge uptake or health behaviors should be implemented in practice, programs, and policies-if not already implemented. When implementing strategies, decision-makers should consider the barriers and facilitators identified by this overview to ensure maximum effectiveness. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: CRD42018093245.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeCaregiversCommunicationEvidence-Based MedicineHealth BehaviorHealth EducationHumansInformation DisseminationPatientsSystematic Reviews as TopicTranslational Research, BiomedicalCaregiversConsumersKnowledge translationPatientsResearch uptake

Identifiers

PMID32131861
PMCPMC7057470

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.