Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36309675›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2022

Creating conditions for effective knowledge brokering: a qualitative case study.

Prue Burns, Graeme Currie, Ian McLoughlin, Tracy Robinson, Amrik Sohal, Helena Teede

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 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

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

6 authors.

Prue BurnsSchool of Management, RMIT University, Building 80, Swanson St, Melbourne, VIC, 3000, Australia.
Graeme CurrieWarwick Business School, Scarman Rd, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK. Graeme.Currie@wbs.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4825-9711
Ian McLoughlinDepartment of Management, Monash University, 900 Dandedong Rd., Caulfield East, Melbourne, VIC, 3145, Australia.
Tracy RobinsonMonash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, School of Public Health, Monash University, Level 1, 43-51 Kanooka Grove, Clayton, Melbourne, VIC, 3168, Australia.
Amrik SohalDepartment of Management, Monash University, 900 Dandedong Rd., Caulfield East, Melbourne, VIC, 3145, Australia.
Helena TeedeMonash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, School of Public Health, Monash University, Level 1, 43-51 Kanooka Grove, Clayton, Melbourne, VIC, 3168, Australia.

Funding

Australian Research Council Linkage Grant LP140100243
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProcess improvement in healthcare is informed by knowledge from the private sector. Skilled individuals may aid the adoption of this knowledge by frontline care delivery workers through knowledge brokering. However, the effectiveness of those who broker knowledge is limited when the context they work within proves unreceptive to their efforts. We therefore need greater insight into the contextual conditions that support individuals to broker process improvement knowledge to the frontline of care delivery, and how policy makers and organizations might generate such conditions.

methodsOur research took place in a healthcare system within an Australian State. We undertook a qualitative, embedded single case study over the four year period of a process improvement intervention encompassing 57 semi-structured interviews (with knowledge brokers, policy makers, and executive sponsors), 12 focus groups, and 137 h of observation, which included the frontline implementation of actual process improvement initiatives, where knowledge brokering took place.

resultsWe identified four phases of the process improvement intervention that moved towards a more mature collaboration within which knowledge brokering by improvement advisors began to emerge as effective. In the first phase knowledge brokering was not established. In the second phase, whilst knowledge brokering had been initiated, the knowledge being brokered lacked legitimacy amongst frontline practitioners, resulting in resistance. Only in the fourth and final phase of the intervention did the collective experience of policy makers result in reflections on how they might engender a more receptive context for knowledge brokering.

conclusionWe highlight a number of suggested actions that policy makers might consider, if they wish to engender contextual conditions that support knowledge brokering. Policy makers might consider: ensuring they respect local context and experience, by pulling good ideas upward, rather than imposing foreign knowledge from on high; facilitating the lateral diffusion of knowledge by building cultural linkages between people and organizations; strengthening collaboration, not competition, so that trans-organisational flow of ideas might be encouraged; being friend, not foe, to healthcare organizations on their knowledge integration journey. In sum, we suggest that top-down approaches to facilitating the diffusion and adoption of new ideas ought to be reconsidered.

Indexed as

Administrative PersonnelKnowledgeAustraliaDelivery of Health CareHumansQualitative ResearchAustraliaHealthcare policyKnowledge brokeringProcess improvementReceptive context

Identifiers

PMID36309675
PMCPMC9618207

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.