Jacqueline Schleifer Taylor1, Molly C Verrier2, Michel D Landry3. 1. Graduate Department of Rehabilitation Science. 2. Graduate Department of Rehabilitation Science ; Department of Physical Therapy and Graduate Department of Rehabilitation Science, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto ; Toronto Rehabilitation Institute-University Health Network, Toronto. 3. Graduate Department of Rehabilitation Science ; Department of Physical Therapy and Graduate Department of Rehabilitation Science, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto ; Doctor of Physical Therapy Division, School of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, N.C.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To conduct a systematic review of the literature related to the use of knowledge brokers within paediatric rehabilitation, and specifically to determine (1) how knowledge brokers are defined and used in paediatric rehabilitation and (2) whether knowledge brokers in paediatric rehabilitation have demonstrably improved the performance of health care providers or organizations. METHODS: The MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and AMED databases were systematically searched to identify studies relating to knowledge brokers or knowledge brokering within paediatric rehabilitation, with no restriction on the study design or primary aim. Following review of titles and abstracts, those studies identified as potentially relevant were assessed based on the inclusion criteria that they: (1) examined some aspect of knowledge brokers/brokering in paediatric rehabilitation; (2) included sufficient descriptive detail on how knowledge brokers/brokering were used; and(3) were peer-reviewed and published in English. RESULTS: Of 1513 articles retrieved, 4 met the inclusion criteria, 3 of which referenced the same knowledge broker initiative. Two papers used mixed methods, one qualitative methodology, and one case presentation. Because of the different methods used in the included studies, the findings are presented in a narrative summary. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides an overview of the limited understanding of knowledge brokers within paediatric rehabilitation. Knowledge broker initiatives introduced within paediatric rehabilitation have been anchored in different theoretical frameworks, and no conclusions can be drawn as to the optimum combination of knowledge brokering activities and methods, nor about optimal duration, for sustained results.
PURPOSE: To conduct a systematic review of the literature related to the use of knowledge brokers within paediatric rehabilitation, and specifically to determine (1) how knowledge brokers are defined and used in paediatric rehabilitation and (2) whether knowledge brokers in paediatric rehabilitation have demonstrably improved the performance of health care providers or organizations. METHODS: The MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and AMED databases were systematically searched to identify studies relating to knowledge brokers or knowledge brokering within paediatric rehabilitation, with no restriction on the study design or primary aim. Following review of titles and abstracts, those studies identified as potentially relevant were assessed based on the inclusion criteria that they: (1) examined some aspect of knowledge brokers/brokering in paediatric rehabilitation; (2) included sufficient descriptive detail on how knowledge brokers/brokering were used; and(3) were peer-reviewed and published in English. RESULTS: Of 1513 articles retrieved, 4 met the inclusion criteria, 3 of which referenced the same knowledge broker initiative. Two papers used mixed methods, one qualitative methodology, and one case presentation. Because of the different methods used in the included studies, the findings are presented in a narrative summary. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides an overview of the limited understanding of knowledge brokers within paediatric rehabilitation. Knowledge broker initiatives introduced within paediatric rehabilitation have been anchored in different theoretical frameworks, and no conclusions can be drawn as to the optimum combination of knowledge brokering activities and methods, nor about optimal duration, for sustained results.
Authors: Melissa H Kong; Gregg C Fonarow; Eric D Peterson; Anne B Curtis; Adrian F Hernandez; Gillian D Sanders; Kevin L Thomas; David L Hayes; Sana M Al-Khatib Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2011-02-15 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Maureen Dobbins; Paula Robeson; Donna Ciliska; Steve Hanna; Roy Cameron; Linda O'Mara; Kara DeCorby; Shawna Mercer Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2009-04-27 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Danielle Levac; Stephanie M N Glegg; Heidi Sveistrup; Heather Colquhoun; Patricia A Miller; Hillel Finestone; Vincent DePaul; Jocelyn E Harris; Diana Velikonja Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2016-10-06 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Lisa A Cranley; Greta G Cummings; Joanne Profetto-McGrath; Ferenc Toth; Carole A Estabrooks Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-08-11 Impact factor: 2.692