Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34158291›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2021

Identification of knowledge translation theories, models or frameworks suitable for health technology reassessment: a survey of international experts.

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

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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, University of Calgary Cumming School of Medicine, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-7023-5863
Heather M HansonDepartment of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary Cumming School of Medicine, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Jayna Holroyd-LeducDepartment of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary Cumming School of Medicine, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Daniel J NivenDepartment of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary Cumming School of Medicine, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Fiona M ClementDepartment of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary Cumming School of Medicine, Calgary, Alberta, Canada fclement@ucalgary.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveHealth technology reassessment (HTR) is a field focused on managing a technology throughout its life cycle for optimal use. The process results in one of four possible recommendations: increase use, decrease use, no change or complete withdrawal of the technology. However, implementation of these recommendations has been challenging. This paper explores knowledge translation (KT) theories, models and frameworks (TMFs) and their suitability for implementation of HTR recommendations.

designCross-sectional survey.

participantsPurposeful sampling of international KT and HTR experts was administered between January and March 2019.

methodsSixteen full-spectrum KT TMFs were rated by the experts as 'yes', 'partially yes' or 'no' on six criteria: familiarity, logical consistency/plausibility, degree of specificity, accessibility, ease of use and HTR suitability. Consensus was determined as a rating of ≥70% responding 'yes'. Descriptive statistics and manifest content analysis were conducted on open-ended comments.

resultsEleven HTR and 11 KT experts from Canada, USA, UK, Australia, Germany, Spain, Italy and Sweden participated. Of the 16 KT TMFs, none received ≥70% rating. When ratings of 'yes' and 'partially yes' were combined, the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was considered the most suitable KT TMF by both KT and HTR experts (86%). One additional KT TMF was selected by KT experts: Knowledge to Action framework. HTR experts selected two additional KT TMFs: Co-KT framework and Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle. Experts identified three key characteristics of a KT TMF that may be important to consider: practicality, guidance on implementation and KT TMF adaptability.

conclusionsDespite not reaching an overall ≥70% rating on any of the KT TMFs, experts identified four KT TMFs suitable for HTR. Users may apply these KT TMFs in the implementation of HTR recommendations. In addition, KT TMF characteristics relevant to the field of HTR need to be explored further.

Indexed as

Biomedical TechnologyTranslational Research, BiomedicalAustraliaCanadaCross-Sectional StudiesGermanyHumansItalySpainSwedenepidemiologyhealth services administration & managementpublic health

Identifiers

PMID34158291
PMCPMC8220529

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.