ArticleBMJ open2025
Knowledge translation in Anglo-American paramedicine: a scoping review.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo map what is currently known about knowledge translation (KT) in Anglo-American paramedicine. The review focuses on reported barriers and facilitators to the implementation of new knowledge, and the use of models, theories and frameworks to guide implementation practice.
designScoping review reported as per both the Joanna Briggs Institute and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews reporting guidelines. DATA SOURCES: CINAHL (EBSCO Host) and Medline (OVID interface) were searched from January 2000 to May 2023. Reference lists of all included papers were reviewed, and several key professional journals were hand-searched. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Primary sources that focused on KT models, theories or frameworks, or barriers and facilitators to KT implementation, involving paramedics or Emergency Medical Technicians (Paramedic in America) working in an out-of-hospital, Anglo-American Emergency Medical Service (EMS) system were eligible for inclusion. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: One reviewer used a data extraction template developed for this review and 10% of the papers were checked by the second author. Findings were summarised in tables and synthesised both quantitatively and qualitatively.
resultsThe search yielded 1268 primary sources, of which 48 were included in the review. Thirty-two papers examining KT interventions and 16 papers examining the barriers and facilitators to KT were found. Only one randomised controlled trial was found, and only one paper made explicit use of any KT framework. Overall, eight themes describing barriers and facilitators to KT arose from the qualitative literature, with clinicians' perception of the evidence being the dominant theme. All 32 papers describing KT interventions included some form of educational intervention.
conclusionsOverall, there is little depth and breadth in the literature, with many papers focusing on trauma and airway management. There are large gaps in the evidence surrounding the use of KT theories and frameworks in Anglo-American EMS. Further research is needed to identify appropriate KT models and frameworks that are contextualised to EMS to ensure that paramedic-led research finds its way to the clinicians needing to use it.
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.