Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36710774›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2022

Situating the KTA gap in clinical research: Foregrounding a discontinuity in practices.

Giulia Di Rienzo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

1 author.

Giulia Di RienzoCentre for Philosophical Psychology, Department of Philosophy, Universiteit Antwerpen, Antwerpen, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this study, I will claim that we need to rearticulate the so-called "knowledge-to-action" (KTA) gap metaphor in clinical research as a discontinuity of practices. In clinical research, there is a significant delay between the production of research results and their application in policy and practice. These difficulties are normally conceptualized through the metaphor of the KTA gap between scientific knowledge and practical applications. I will advise that it is important to reformulate the terms of the problem, as they suggest the difficulty lies only in the results generated on one side (the laboratory), not reaching the other side (the clinic), and that crossing the gap requires us to simply optimize the transfer and exchange of knowledge. This perspective considers knowledge separate from the practices from which it was generated, making it into a thing that can be transported and transferred largely independently from the communities that produce or "possess" it. The paper then revises the terms of the problem, shifting the focus from knowledge understood as independent from practical circumstances to the situated practices of knowing. Knowledge will then be understood as enacted in practice, emerging as people interact recurrently in the context of established practices. When people coming from different domains and with different "ends-in-view" must coordinate, they have to deal with conceptual and practical tensions, different ways of doing things with their surroundings, and different normative practices. Considering that, the KTA gap will be revised, not as a gap between scientific results and their application in clinical practice, but as a discontinuity in how communities engage with their local contexts and what they perceive as relevant for their activities.

Indexed as

ecological psychologyenactivismknowledge-to-action gapknowledge translationScience and Technology Studies (STS)scientific practices

Identifiers

PMID36710774
PMCPMC9880287

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.