Evaluating Factors Affecting Knowledge Sharing Among Health Care Professionals in the Medical Imaging Departments of 2 Cancer Centers: Concurrent Mixed Methods Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Knowledge sharing is a crucial part of any knowledge management implementation. It refers to sharing skills and experience among team members in an organization. In a health care setting, sharing knowledge, whether tacit or explicit, is important and can lead to better health care services. In medical imaging departments, knowledge sharing can be of particular importance. There are several factors that affect knowledge-sharing practices in medical imaging departments: individual, departmental, and technological. Evaluating the importance of these factors and understanding their use can help with improving knowledge-sharing practices in medical imaging departments. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess the level of motivation, identify current knowledge-sharing tools, and evaluate factors affecting knowledge sharing in the medical imaging departments of 2 cancer centers, The Christie, United Kingdom, and the Kuwait Cancer Control Center (KCCC). METHODS: A concurrent mixed methods study was conducted through nonprobability sampling techniques between February 1, 2023, and July 30, 2023. Semistructured interviews were used to validate the results of the quantitative analysis. Data were collected using an electronic questionnaire that was distributed among health care professionals in both cancer centers using Qualtrics. Semistructured interviews were conducted online using Microsoft Teams. The quantitative data were analyzed using the Qualtrics MX software to report the results for each question, whereas the qualitative data were analyzed using a thematic approach with codes classified through NVivo. RESULTS: In total, 56 respondents from the KCCC and 29 from The Christie participated, with a 100% response rate (56/56, 100% and 29/29, 100%, respectively) based on the Qualtrics survey tool. A total of 59% (17/29) of health care professionals from The Christie shared their knowledge using emails and face-to-face communication as their main tools on a daily basis, and 57% (32/56) of health care professionals from the KCCC used face-to-face communication for knowledge sharing. The mean Likert-scale score of all the components that assessed the factors that affected knowledge-sharing behaviors fell between "somewhat agree" and "strongly agree" in both centers, excepting extrinsic motivation, which was rated as "neither agree nor disagree." This was similar to the results related to incentives. It was shown that 52% (15/29) of health care professionals at The Christie had no incentives to encourage knowledge-sharing practices. Therefore, establishing clear policies to manage incentives is important to increase knowledge-sharing practices. CONCLUSIONS: This study offered an evaluation of factors that affect knowledge sharing in 2 cancer centers. Most health care professionals were aware of the importance of knowledge-sharing practices in enhancing health care services. Several challenges were identified, such as time constraints, a lack of staff, and the language barrier, which limit knowledge-sharing practices. Therefore, establishing a clear policy for knowledge sharing is vital to practicing knowledge-sharing behaviors and facing any challenges that limit this practice.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».