Knowledge brokering as an intervention in paediatric rehabilitation practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Knowledge brokering is an emerging intervention to promote research use in clinical practice. By targeting identified barriers, clinician knowledge brokers have the potential to facilitate evidence-based practice for their peers, while accounting for contextual factors that influence this process. Few accounts in the literature describe the process of implementing a knowledge brokering system, or the specific activities and roles carried out by knowledge brokers in an enabling capacity. Content The aim of this article is to present the theoretical basis for knowledge brokering, and to describe a model used by a brain injury team within a paediatric health care centre. Conclusions Knowledge broker facilitation enabled the compilation and creation of useful resources to assist team members in incorporating evidence into practice. It also yielded increased awareness of, and access to, available research, as well as evidence syntheses on clinical topics of relevance to the group. Clinicians may be well suited to perform this enabling role. An increased emphasis on mentoring and community building to support knowledge brokers and on structured evaluation of knowledge broker activities is recommended.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".