ArticleBMJ leader2024
Workplace-based knowledge exchange programmes between academics, policy-makers and providers of healthcare: a qualitative study.
Article in BMJ leader, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWorkplace-based knowledge exchange programmes (WKEPs), such as job shadowing or secondments, offer potential for health and care providers, academics, and policy-makers to foster partnerships, develop local solutions and overcome key differences in practices. Yet opportunities for exchange can be hard to find and are poorly reported in the literature.
objectivesTo understand the views of providers, academics and policy-makers regarding WKEPs, in particular, their motivations to participate in such exchanges and the perceived barriers and facilitators to participation.
methodsA qualitative study involving semistructured interviews with 20 healthcare providers, academics and policy-makers in England. Rapid data collection and analysis techniques were employed. Interviews formed part of a wider scoping study that mapped the characteristics and existing literature related to WKEPs.
resultsInterviewees reported being motivated to develop, sponsor and/or participate in WKEPs with a clear purpose and defined outcomes that could demonstrate the value of the time out of work to their organisations. Perceived barriers included competitive application processes for national fellowships, a lack of knowing how to identify with whom to undertake an exchange (varying 'tribes'), and the burdens of time, costs and administration regarding arranging exchanges. WKEPs were reported to work best where there was a perceived sense of shared purpose, long-standing relationship and trust between organisations. Facilitators included existing confidentiality agreements and/or shared professional standards, as well as funding.
conclusionWKEPs were reported to be valuable experiences but required significant organisational buy-in and cooperation to arrange and sustain. To benefit emerging partnerships, such as the new integrated care systems in England, more outcomes evaluations of existing WKEPs are needed, and research focused on overcoming barriers to participation, such as time and costs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.