ReviewDigital health
Knowledge mobilization in childhood cancer: A scoping review and content analysis.
Review in Digital health. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This scoping review aimed to map the literature on knowledge mobilization (KMb), the reciprocal exchange of knowledge and expertise among key partners to bridge research and practice, in the childhood cancer community, identifying key needs, barriers, facilitators, and alignment with the knowledge-to-action (KTA) framework. Methods: A comprehensive search was completed across Medline, Scopus, and ERIC. Data on study characteristics, KMb categories, barriers/facilitators, and KTA approaches were extracted and analyzed. Results: A total of 2522 unique articles were identified, of which 77 met the inclusion criteria (1988-2024). Most studies were conducted in high-income countries ( Conclusion: The state of the literature indicates that the childhood cancer community faces complex KMb needs and barriers. Future research and innovation should focus on patient and family engagement, address socioeconomic and cultural disparities, and explore how technology can enhance KMb, practice, and policy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.