Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32834974›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of disaster risk reduction : IJDRR2020

The role of tacit knowledge in communication and decision-making during emerging public health incidents.

S Sanford, B Schwartz, Y Khan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of disaster risk reduction : IJDRR, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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.

S SanfordPublic Health Ontario, 480 University Avenue, Suite 300, Toronto, ON, M5G 1V2, Canada.
B SchwartzPublic Health Ontario, 480 University Avenue, Suite 300, Toronto, ON, M5G 1V2, Canada.
Y KhanPublic Health Ontario, 480 University Avenue, Suite 300, Toronto, ON, M5G 1V2, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Strong communication systems for knowledge exchange are required to prevent, respond to and mitigate the effects of emerging public health incidents (EPHIs). The objective of this paper is to examine how "tacit knowledge" - implicit knowledge used to guide everyday practice - is employed in professional relationships and communication processes between public health and acute care settings. A qualitative study design was used to explore the experiences of key informants from public health and acute care settings in Ontario, Canada, to examine how specific dimensions of tacit knowledge are employed in communications about EPHIs. Twenty-six in-depth interviews were conducted from 2014 to 2015. The results describe the way in which participants employ discretion and knowledge of local context, and rely on relationships built on trust and credibility, to facilitate decision-making and communication during EPHIs. Given the uncertainty characterizing most EPHIs, communicators rely a great deal on their informal knowledge and networks which allow them to remain flexible and respond quickly to changing situations. The results reveal that communication about public health guidance during emergencies is a complex and active process that draws from past experiences of the individuals involved, and is shaped by the requirements of local circumstances. The broader implications of these findings for building resilient and responsive health systems are considered. In particular, for rethinking the authority of standardized forms of evidence in public health decision-making, and the importance of knowledge which is grounded in the uniqueness of specific local contexts.

Identifiers

PMID32834974
PMCPMC7247478

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.