Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28732513›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2017

Competing for space in an already crowded market: a mixed methods study of why an online community of practice (CoP) for alcohol harm reduction failed to generate interest amongst the group of public health professionals at which it was aimed.

Ruth Ponsford, Jennifer Ford, Helena Korjonen, Emma Hughes, Asha Keswani, Triantafyllos Pliakas, Matt Egan

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science : IS, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ruth PonsfordDepartment of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London, WC1H 9SH, UK. ruth.ponsford@lshtm.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-2612-0249
Jennifer FordUK Health Forum, Fleetbank House, 2-6 Salisbury Square, London, EC4Y 8JX, UK.
Helena KorjonenUK Health Forum, Fleetbank House, 2-6 Salisbury Square, London, EC4Y 8JX, UK.
Emma HughesUK Health Forum, Fleetbank House, 2-6 Salisbury Square, London, EC4Y 8JX, UK.
Asha KeswaniUK Health Forum, Fleetbank House, 2-6 Salisbury Square, London, EC4Y 8JX, UK.
Triantafyllos PliakasDepartment of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London, WC1H 9SH, UK.
Matt EganDepartment of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London, WC1H 9SH, UK.
UK Health Forum · GBLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundImproving mechanisms for knowledge translation (KT) and connecting decision-makers to each other and the information and evidence they consider relevant to their work remains a priority for public health. Virtual communities of practices (CoPs) potentially offer an affordable and flexible means of encouraging connection and sharing of evidence, information and learning among the public health community in ways that transgress traditional geographical, professional, institutional and time boundaries. The suitability of online CoPs in public health, however, has rarely been tested. This paper explores the reasons why particular online CoP for alcohol harm reduction hosted by the UK Health Forum failed to generate sufficient interest from the group of public health professionals at which it was aimed.

methodsThe study utilises online web-metrics demonstrating a lack of online activity on the CoP. One hundred and twenty seven responses to an online questionnaire were used to explore whether the lack of activity could be explained by the target audience's existing information and evidence practices and needs. Qualitative interviews with 10 members describe in more detail the factors that shape and inhibit use of the virtual CoP by those at which it was targeted.

resultsQuantitative and qualitative data confirm that the target audience had an interest in the kind of information and evidence the CoP was set up to share and generate discussion about, but also that participants considered themselves to already have relatively good access to the information and evidence they needed to inform their work. Qualitative data revealed that the main barriers to using the CoP were a proliferation of information sources meaning that participants preferred to utilise trusted sources that were already established within their daily routines and a lack of time to engage with new online tools that required any significant commitment.

conclusionsSpecialist online CoPs are competing for space in an already crowded market. A target audience that regards itself as busy and over-supplied is unlikely to commit to a new service without the assurance that the service will provide unique and valuable well-summarised information, which would reduce the need to spend time accessing competing resources.

Indexed as

Harm ReductionInternetPublic HealthAdolescentAdultAlcohol DrinkingCooperative BehaviorFemaleHumansInformation DisseminationInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedTranslational Research, BiomedicalUnited KingdomYoung AdultCommunity of practiceDecision-makingEvidenceKnowledge translationPublic health

Identifiers

PMID28732513
PMCPMC5521081
OpenAlexW2737906869

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.