MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2314659403 · doi:10.2182/cjot.2010.77.5.3

A Scoping Review of the Use of Theory in Studies of Knowledge Translation

2010· review· en· W2314659403 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Occupational Therapy · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Therapy Practice and Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsOccupational therapyTranslation studiesNursing theoryKnowledge translationDiffusion theoryPsychologyEpistemologyManagement scienceKnowledge managementMedicineComputer scienceMEDLINEPhysical therapyPolitical scienceInnovation diffusionEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Advancing the science of knowledge translation (KT) in occupational therapy is critical. Explicit application of theory can advance this science; yet, how theory is applied and the degree to which it can guide research remain poorly defined. PURPOSE: To understand how theory is applied within KT research. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted to examine and summarize the extent, range, and nature of the application of three specific KT theories: Diffusion of Innovations, Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework, and Theory of Planned Behaviour. FINDINGS: Theory use was seen most frequently in medicine and nursing. Only 3 of 90 articles were in rehabilitation. Five approaches to theory application were found, the most common being the use of to predict success of KT (57/90). IMPLICATIONS: In-depth study of the importance and methods of theory application in KT research is needed, in particular in occupational therapy.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.811
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.843
GPT teacher head0.653
Teacher spread0.190 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it