ArticleDigital health
Exploration for a knowledge translation model in public dissemination via social media: Insights from an innovative Cochrane evidence dissemination competition in China.
Article in Digital health. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to present and evaluate an innovative evidence dissemination competition based on Cochrane evidence through participants' perceptions, barriers, and feedback about evidence dissemination. Methods: We evaluated competition participation, the submissions and their dissemination on social media. An online questionnaire was also conducted to analyze participants' perceptions, barriers, and feedback about the competition and evidence dissemination. Microsoft Excel and IBM SPSS (26.0) were used to analyze the data. Results: A total of 80 text-graphics and 14 short videos submissions in 10 dissemination formats were created by 173 participants. Once disseminated on WeChat, submissions received considerable attention. Questionnaires received revealed the most chosen motivations for participation in personal skills development, including "furthering studies in EBM" (60.7%, 105/173). Previous works (64.2%, 108/173) and social media information (53.2%, 92/173) were the main sources of inspiration. Lack of knowledge in clinical trials was the most prevalent barriers. Only few participants (medical background: 12.9%, nonmedical background: 18.3%) could understand the original English version without translation. Suggested improvement for the competition included "increase competition impact," while expectations for future evidence dissemination included "disseminate through more social media platforms." Conclusions: The third Cochrane Dissemination Competition provided a valuable opportunity for participants to demonstrate their creativity while deepening their understanding of medical evidence, representing a successful attempt to disseminate high-quality Cochrane evidence to the public via Chinese social media. Key elements identified provide valuable insights for evidence dissemination to the public by health professionals via social media.
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.