The role of interpersonal communication in the process of mobilizing evidence-based physical activity information within a community-based organization: A network analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Diffusion of innovations theory has been widely used to explain knowledge mobilization of research findings. This theory posits that individuals who are more interpersonally connected within an organization may be more likely to adopt an innovation (e.g., research evidence) than individuals who are less interconnected. Research examining this tenet of diffusion of innovations theory in the knowledge mobilization literature is limited. The purpose of the present study was to use network analysis to examine the role of interpersonal communication in the adoption and mobilization of the physical activity guidelines for people with spinal cord injury (SCI) among staff and volunteers in a community-based organization (CBO). Methods: The study used a cross-sectional, whole-network design. In total, 81 participants completed the network survey. Adoption of the guidelines was assessed using Rogers’ innovation-decision process and interpersonal communication was assessed using an online network instrument. Results: The patterns of densities observed within the network were indicative of a core-periphery structure revealing that interpersonal communication was greater within the core than between the core and periphery and within the periphery. Membership in the core, as opposed to membership in the periphery, was associated with (1) greater knowledge of the evidence-based physical activity resources; and (2) engagement in physical activity promotion behaviours (ps < .05). Greater in-degree centrality was related to greater knowledge of evidence-based information and behaviours (ps < .05). Conclusion: Findings suggest that interpersonal communication is associated with knowledge mobilization and highlight how the network structure could be improved for further dissemination efforts. Acknowledgments: I would like to acknowledge the Canadian Institute of Health Research for funding my doctoral training and the Social Science and Humanities Council of Canada for funding the Community-University Research Alliance Grant.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".