Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37435518›Full record

Observational studyFrontiers in public health2023

Making tacit knowledge explicit through objects: a qualitative study of the translation of resilience into practice.

Hilda Bø Lyng, Cecilie Haraldseid-Driftland, Veslemøy Guise, Eline Ree, Heidi Dombestein, Birte Fagerdal, Hilde Valen Wæhle, Siri Wiig

Open access · goldAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Frontiers in public health, 2023. 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
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Hilda Bø LyngSHARE-Centre for Resilience in Healthcare, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway.
Cecilie Haraldseid-DriftlandSHARE-Centre for Resilience in Healthcare, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway.
Veslemøy GuiseSHARE-Centre for Resilience in Healthcare, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway.
Eline ReeSHARE-Centre for Resilience in Healthcare, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway.
Heidi DombesteinSHARE-Centre for Resilience in Healthcare, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway.
Birte FagerdalSHARE-Centre for Resilience in Healthcare, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway.
Hilde Valen WæhleSHARE-Centre for Resilience in Healthcare, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway.
Siri WiigSHARE-Centre for Resilience in Healthcare, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway.
University of Stavanger · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: It is common practice to use objects to bridge disciplines and develop shared understanding across knowledge boundaries. Objects for knowledge mediation provide a point of reference which allows for the translation of abstract concepts into more externalized representations. This study reports from an intervention that introduced an unfamiliar resilience perspective in healthcare, through the use of a resilience in healthcare (RiH) learning tool. The aim of this paper is to explore how a RiH learning tool may be used as an object for introduction and translation of a new perspective across different healthcare settings. Methods: This study is based on empirical observational data, collected throughout an intervention to test a RiH learning tool, developed as part of the Resilience in Healthcare (RiH) program. The intervention took place between September 2022 and January 2023. The intervention was tested in 20 different healthcare units, including hospitals, nursing homes and home care services. A total of 15 workshops were carried out, including 39-41 participants in each workshop round. Throughout the intervention, data was gathered in all 15 workshops at the different organizational sites. Observation notes from each workshop make up the data set for this study. The data was analyzed using an inductive thematic analysis approach. Results and conclusion: The RiH learning tool served as different forms of objects during the introduction of the unfamiliar resilience perspective for healthcare professionals. It provided a means to develop shared reflection, understanding, focus, and language for the different disciplines and settings involved. The resilience tool acted as a boundary object for the development of shared understanding and language, as an epistemic object for the development of shared focus and as an activity object within the shared reflection sessions. Enabling factors for the internalization of the unfamiliar resilience perspective were to provide active facilitation of the workshops, repeated explanation of unfamiliar concepts, provide relatedness to own context, and promote psychological safety in the workshops. Overall, observations from the testing of the RiH learning tool showed how these different objects were crucial in making tacit knowledge explicit, which is key to improve service quality and promote learning processes in healthcare.

Indexed as

LearningNursing HomesHealth PersonnelHospitalsHumansQualitative Researchactivity objectsboundary objectsepistemic objectsinterventionslearning toolresilience in healthcare

Identifiers

PMID37435518
PMCPMC10332460
OpenAlexW4382136057

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.