4.2 Review

Knowledge Translation Strategies Used by Healthcare Professionals in Child Health Settings: An Updated Systematic Review

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.pedn.2019.04.026

Keywords

Pediatrics; Child health; Knowledge translation; Systematic review

Funding

  1. Stollery Children's Hospital Foundation through the Women and Children's Health Research Institute

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Problem: Strategies assisting healthcare professionals to make evidence-based decisions are crucial for quality patient care and outcomes. To date, there is one systematic review (Albrecht et al., 2016) examining knowledge translation (KT) efforts in child health settings. This systematic review aims to provide an update on current evidence identifying KT interventions implementing research into child health settings. Eligibility criteria: Nine electronic databases were searched, restricted by date (2011-2018) and language (English). Eligibility included: 1) randomized controlled trials (RCT), controlled clinical trials (CCT), or controlled before-and-after (CBA) studies; 2) interventions implementing research into child health practice; and 3) outcomes were measured at the healthcare professional/process, patient, or economic level. Sample: Health care professionals working in child health settings. Results: 48 studies (38 RCT, 7 CBA, 3 CCT) were included. Studies employed single (n = 34) andmultiple(n = 14) interventions. The methodological quality of studies was moderate (n = 18), strong(n = 16) and weak(n = 14). Studies showing significant, positive effects included (n = 9) RCTs, (n = 3) CBAs and (n = 2) CCTs. These studies employed (n = 11) single KT interventions and (n = 3) multiple KT interventions. Interventions included educational (n = 6), reminders (n = 3), computerized decision supports (n = 2), multidisciplinary teams (n = 2) and financial and educational interventions combined (n = 1). (C) 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available