ArticleBMC health services research2025
Development and evaluation of a tool (named Evidence Brief) to communicate allied health research translation.
Article in BMC health services research, 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAn allied health research capacity building initiative at a regional Australian public health service has increased research activity significantly. To demonstrate the value of allied health research activity a short one-page narrative was developed to communicate the impact of allied health research. This paper evaluates the use of the narrative at this healthcare organisation.
methodsA multiple case study design was used for the evaluation. Three cases written as narratives were chosen and one comparison case without a narrative. The cases were investigated via organisational document review, policies, or guidelines, and published journal articles, plus semi-structured interviews were conducted with relevant stakeholders. Analysis was conducted in four stages: case context and description, within-case analysis, cross-case analysis and interpretation and evaluation using thematic analysis.
resultsDocument analysis revealed the rationale and evidence for the practice change, the instigator of change and enablers. Cross-case analysis identified commonalities such as an expanded scope of practice, clinician-led change, and the inclusion of salient stakeholders to ensure that translation occurred. Differences included the timing of funding and the reach of change.
conclusionThe one-page narrative (named Evidence Brief) effectively describes a change in clinical practice because of allied health research or quality improvement projects. Evidence Briefs have potential to act as a research measure with each Evidence Brief acting as a unit of change so that over time, accumulated Evidence Briefs may be used to measure clinical practice change resulting from research. Future research by this team will obtain feedback from management to determine the value of Evidence Briefs as a communication tool and to evaluate the extended use of them across other disciplines and healthcare organisations.
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.