MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4289522181 · doi:10.9745/ghsp-d-22-00036

What Drives Knowledge Seeking, Sharing, and Use Among Family Planning Professionals? Behavioral Evidence From Africa, Asia, and the United States

2022· article· en· W4289522181 on OpenAlexaff
Ruwaida M. Salem, Anne Ballard Sara, Salim Seif Kombo, Sarah Hopwood, Tara M. Sullivan

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Health Science and Practice · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Maternal and Child Health
Canadian institutionsImpact
FundersFHI 360Johns Hopkins UniversityUnited States Agency for International Development
KeywordsThematic analysisPsychological interventionPsychologyInformation sharingPublic relationsQualitative researchMedical educationNursingMedicinePolitical scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To contribute to strengthening family planning and reproductive health (FP/RH) programs by identifying behavioral factors that influence FP/RH professionals' knowledge management (KM) behaviors. METHODS: We conducted an online survey, in-depth interviews, and cocreation workshops between July 2019 and June 2020 with a convenience sample of FP/RH professionals in Africa, Asia, and the United States to explore their KM behaviors. We used descriptive statistics to analyze the survey data and inductive thematic analysis for the interviews, and we synthesized participant inputs from selected cocreation activities. RESULTS: The samples consisted of 273 survey respondents, 23 interviewees, and 69 cocreation workshop participants. There were no significant differences in how professionals seek and share information by gender, role, or geographic region, except related to language barriers among Francophone professionals. FP/RH professionals reported using both digital sources and their professional networks to seek and share information. Choice overload and cognitive overload (when people are presented with too much information and in a way that is hard to understand, respectively) act as barriers as they seek and use information. Too many information sources lead to frustration and inaction and best practices are often not contextualized or specific enough for application. Positive KM organizational cultures help facilitate effective information sharing, but reluctance to share information persists due to fear of losing comparative advantage. FP/RH professionals noted that such barriers result in duplication of effort and lack of advancement in FP/RH programs. CONCLUSION: To improve overall program impact, KM interventions in FP/RH and global health should reduce cognitive and choice overload, especially by curating and sharing practical, actionable information with essential details on context and how programs are implemented so that others can apply or adapt the learnings. Programs should use incentives to foster motivation to share this type of information.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.345 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Health Science and PracticeSame topicGlobal Maternal and Child HealthFrench-language works237,207