↓ Skip to main content

What can organisational theory offer knowledge translation in healthcare? A thematic and lexical analysis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
What can organisational theory offer knowledge translation in healthcare? A thematic and lexical analysis
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12913-018-3121-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ann Dadich, Navin Doloswala

Abstract

Despite the relative abundance of frameworks and models to guide implementation science, the explicit use of theory is limited. Bringing together two seemingly disparate fields of research, this article asks, what can organisational theory offer implementation science? This is examined by applying a theoretical lens that incorporates agency, institutional, and situated change theories to understand the implementation of healthcare knowledge into practice. Interviews were conducted with 20 general practitioners (GPs) before and after using a resource to facilitate evidence-based sexual healthcare. Research material was analysed using two approaches - researcher-driven thematic coding and lexical analysis, which was relatively less researcher-driven. The theoretical lens elucidated the complex pathways of knowledge translation. More specifically, agency theory revealed tensions between the GP as agent and their organisations and patients as principals. Institutional theory highlighted the importance of GP-embeddedness within their chosen specialty of general practice; their medical profession; and the practice in which they worked. Situated change theory exposed the role of localised adaptations over time - a metamorphosis. This study has theoretical, methodological, and practical implications. Theoretically, it is the first to examine knowledge translation using a lens premised on agency, institutional, and situated change theories. Methodologically, the study highlights the complementary value of researcher-driven and researcher-guided analysis of qualitative research material. Practically, this study signposts opportunities to facilitate knowledge translation - more specifically, it suggests that efforts to shape clinician practices should accommodate the interrelated influence of the agent and the institution, and recognise that change can be ever so subtle.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 6 33%
Student > Postgraduate 4 22%
Other 2 11%
Student > Master 2 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 11%
Other 2 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 7 39%
Social Sciences 2 11%
Sports and Recreations 2 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Other 4 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 June 2018.
All research outputs
#9,973,640
of 13,040,510 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#3,507
of 4,337 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#187,641
of 270,970 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,040,510 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,337 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 270,970 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them