Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33926430›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2021

Characteristics of knowledge translation theories, models and frameworks for health technology reassessment: expert perspectives through a qualitative exploration.

Rosmin Esmail, Fiona M Clement, Jayna Holroyd-Leduc, Daniel J Niven, Heather M Hanson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

5 authors.

Rosmin EsmailDepartment of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, 3D10 TRW Building, 3280 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta, T2N 4Z6, Canada.
Fiona M ClementDepartment of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, 3D10 TRW Building, 3280 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta, T2N 4Z6, Canada.
Jayna Holroyd-LeducDepartment of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, 3D10 TRW Building, 3280 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta, T2N 4Z6, Canada.
Daniel J NivenDepartment of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, 3D10 TRW Building, 3280 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta, T2N 4Z6, Canada.
Heather M HansonDepartment of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, 3D10 TRW Building, 3280 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta, T2N 4Z6, Canada. hmhanson@ucalgary.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2297-7253

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth Technology Reassessment (HTR) is a process that systematically assesses technologies that are currently used in the health care system. The process results in four outputs: increase use or decrease use, no change, or de-adoption of a technology. Implementation of these outputs remains a challenge. The Knowledge Translation (KT) field enables to transfer/translate knowledge into practice. KT could help with implementation of HTR outputs. This study sought to identify which characteristics of KT theories, models, and frameworks could be useful, specifically for decreased use or de-adoption of a technology.

methodsA qualitative descriptive approach was used to ascertain the perspectives of international KT and HTR experts on the characteristics of KT theories, models, and frameworks for decreased use or de-adoption of a technology. One-to-one semi-structured interviews were conducted from September to December 2019. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Themes and sub-themes were deduced from the data through framework analysis using five distinctive steps: familiarization, identifying an analytic framework, indexing, charting, mapping and interpretation. Themes and sub-themes were also mapped to existing KT theories, models, and frameworks.

resultsThirteen experts from Canada, United States, United Kingdom, Australia, Germany, Spain, and Sweden participated in the study. Three themes emerged that illustrated the ideal traits: principles that were foundational for HTR, levers of change, and steps for knowledge to action. Principles included evidence-based, high usability, patient-centered, and ability to apply to the micro, meso, macro levels. Levers of change were characterized as positive, neutral, or negative influences for changing behaviour for HTR. Steps for knowledge to action included: build the case for HTR, adapt research knowledge, assess context, select interventions, and assess impact. Of the KT theories, models, and frameworks that were mapped, the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research had most of the characteristics, except ability to apply to micro, meso, macro levels.

conclusionsCharacteristics that need to be considered within a KT theory, model, and framework for implementing HTR outputs have been identified. Consideration of these characteristics may guide users to select relevant KT theories, models, and frameworks to apply to HTR projects.

Indexed as

Biomedical TechnologyTranslational Research, BiomedicalAustraliaCanadaHumansSpainSwedenUnited KingdomDe-adoptionDe-implementationDisinvestmentHealth technology reassessmentImplementation scienceKnowledge translationModels and frameworksTheories

Identifiers

PMID33926430
PMCPMC8082625

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.