ArticleScandinavian journal of caring sciences2025
The Implementation of Knowledge Management in Health and Social Care Organisations as Assessed by Managers: A Descriptive Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Scandinavian journal of caring sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- The Implementation of Knowledge Management in Health and Social Care Organisations as Assessed by Managers: A Descriptive Cross-Sectional Study.Scandinavian journal of caring sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo describe the implementation of knowledge management in health and social care organisations, as assessed by managers. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: A descriptive cross-sectional study was used. Data were collected from all eligible managers of six Finnish public health and social care organisations (N = 649) using an electronic version of the Managers' Competence in Knowledge Management (MCKM) instrument in February and August 2022. The data included responses from 116 managers and were analysed using descriptive statistical methods.
findingsAlmost half of the managers reported that their organisations did not allocate sufficient resources to knowledge management or systematically map and assess staff competence, even though knowledge development was mentioned in almost all of the organisations' strategies. The results indicated a statistically significant difference between the work area and the clear definition of responsibilities in knowledge management and the utilisation of data to assess staff competence. In addition, a statistically significant difference was observed in the health and social care sector and between organisations' allocation of sufficient resources to knowledge management, the clear definition of responsibilities in knowledge management, and the systematic mapping of staff competences. The most used staff competence development methods included student mentoring, discussions, and familiarisation, while the least used were peer evaluation and study circles. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: The results help identify weaknesses in the implementation of knowledge management, enabling more efficient resource allocation and competency development to improve organisational performance and ensure success.
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.