Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34634881›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of health policy and management2022

When Health Systems Consider Research to Be Beyond the Scope of Healthcare Delivery, Research Translation Is Crippled Comment on "Academic Health Science Centres as Vehicles for Knowledge Mobilisation in Australia? A Qualitative Study".

Christine Jorm, Donella Piper

Abstract readComment
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of health policy and management, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Christine JormSchool of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8338-3630
Donella PiperSchool of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5802-6380

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Edelman and colleagues' analysis of the views of Board members of Australian Research Translation Centres (RTCs) is well timed. There has been little study of Australian RTCs to date. We focus on their recommendations regarding knowledge mobilisation (KM) to open broader debate on the wisdom of regarding UK practices as a blueprint. We go further and ask whether successful RTCs might, as a result of responding to local context, create idiosyncratic structures and solutions, making generalisable learning less likely? There has been much invested in Australian RTCs and implications of government's formative evaluation of their work is discussed. Five recommendations are made that could help RTCs: allowing system end-users a greater say in funding decisions, taking a broader, more democratic approach to kinds of knowledge that are valued; investing in methodologies derived from the innovation space; and, a creative attention to governance to support these ideas.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareOrganizationsAustraliaGovernment ProgramsHumansQualitative ResearchContextCo-ProductionDesign ThinkingImpactKnowledge MobilisationResearch Funding

Identifiers

PMID34634881
PMCPMC9309915

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.