lunes, 12 de mayo de 2014

Preventing Chronic Disease | Using Concept Mapping to Develop a Conceptual Framework for Creating Virtual Communities of Practice to Translate Cancer Research into Practice - CDC

full-text ►

Preventing Chronic Disease | Using Concept Mapping to Develop a Conceptual Framework for Creating Virtual Communities of Practice to Translate Cancer Research into Practice - CDC



PCD Logo



Using Concept Mapping to Develop a Conceptual Framework for Creating Virtual Communities of Practice to Translate Cancer Research into Practice

Cynthia A. Vinson, PhD, MPA

Suggested citation for this article: Vinson CA. Using Concept Mapping to Develop a Conceptual Framework for Creating Virtual Communities of Practice to Translate Cancer Research into Practice. Prev Chronic Dis 2014;11:.130280. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.5888/pcd11.130280External Web Site Icon.
PEER REVIEWED

Abstract

Introduction
Translating government-funded cancer research into clinical practice can be accomplished via virtual communities of practice that include key players in the process: researchers, health care practitioners, and intermediaries. This study, conducted from November 2012 through January 2013, examined issues that key stakeholders believed should be addressed to create and sustain government-sponsored virtual communities of practice to integrate cancer control research, practice, and policy and demonstrates how concept mapping can be used to present relevant issues.
Methods
Key stakeholders brainstormed statements describing what is needed to create and sustain virtual communities of practice for moving cancer control research into practice. Participants rated them on importance and feasibility, selected most relevant statements, and sorted them into clusters. I used concept mapping to examine the issues identified and multidimensional scaling analyses to create a 2-dimensional conceptual map of the statement clusters.
Results
Participants selected 70 statements and sorted them into 9 major clusters related to creating and sustaining virtual communities of practice: 1) standardization of best practices, 2) external validity, 3) funding and resources, 4) social learning and collaboration, 5) cooperation, 6) partnerships, 7) inclusiveness, 8) social determinants and cultural competency, and 9) preparing the environment. Researchers, health care practitioners, and intermediaries were in relative agreement regarding issues of importance for creating these communities.
Conclusion
Virtual communities of practice can be created to address the needs of researchers, health care practitioners, and intermediaries by using input from these key stakeholders. Increasing linkages between these subgroups can improve the translation of research into practice. Similarities and differences between groups can provide valuable information to assist the government in developing virtual communities of practice.

Scatter plot

Author Information

Corresponding Author: Cynthia A. Vinson, PhD, MPA, National Cancer Institute, 9609 Medical Center Dr., Room 4E446, Bethesda, MD 20892. Telephone: 240-276-6745. E-mail: cvinson@mail.nih.gov.

References

  1. Wenger E, Trayner B, de Latt M. Promoting and assessing value creation in communities and networks: a conceptual framework. Open Universiteit, Ruud de Moor Centrum; 2011;18:1-56. http://wenger-trayner.com/documents/Wenger_Trayner_DeLaat_Value_creation.pdf. Accessed 19 February 2014.
  2. Li LC, Grimshaw JM, Nielsen CP, Judd M, Coyte PC, Graham ID. Evolution of Wenger's concept of community of practice. Implement Sci 2009;4:11.CrossRefExternal Web Site Icon PubMedExternal Web Site Icon
  3. Millington R. Buzzing Communities: How to build bigger, better, and more active online communities. FeverBee; 2012. http://www.feverbee.com/2012/11/buzzing-communities-.html. Accessed 19 February 2014.
  4. Brazelton J, Gorry GA. Creating a knowledge-sharing community: if you build it, will they come? Commun ACM 2003;46(2):23–5. CrossRefExternal Web Site Icon
  5. Balas EA, Boren SA. Managing clinical knowledge for health care improvement. Section 1: health and clinical management. In: Bemmel J, McCray AT, editors. Yearbook of medical informatics: patient centered systems. Stuttgart (DE): Schattauer Verlagsgesellschaft; 2000. p. 65–70.
  6. Glasgow RE, Vinson C, Chambers D, Khoury MJ, Kaplan RM, Hunter C. National Institutes of Health approaches to dissemination and implementation science: current and future directions. Am J Public Health 2012;102(7):1274–81. CrossRefExternal Web Site Icon PubMedExternal Web Site Icon
  7. Institute of Medicine. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century, 2003. Washington (DC): Institute of Medicine; 2001.
  8. Trochim WMK. An introduction to concept mapping for planning and evaluation. Eval Program Plann 1989;12(1):1–16. CrossRefExternal Web Site Icon
  9. Kruskal JB, Wish M. Multidimensional Scaling. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage; 1978.
  10. Anderson LA, Day KL, Vandenberg AE. Using a concept map as a tool for strategic planning: The Healthy Brain Initiative. Preventing Chronic Disease 2011;8(5):A116.
  11. Graham AL, Kerner JK, Quinlan KM, Vinson CA, Best A. Translating cancer control research into primary care practice: a conceptual framework. Am J Lifestyle Med 2008;2:241–249. CrossRefExternal Web Site Icon
  12. Rosas SR, Kane M. Quality and rigor of the concept mapping methodology: a pooled study analysis. Eval Program Plann 2012;5;35(2):236-245.
  13. Kane M, Trochim WMK. Concept mapping for planning and evaluation. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications; 2007.
  14. Wenger E. Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge (UK), New York (NY): Cambridge University Press; 1998.
  15. Lave J, Wenger E. Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge (UK), New York (NY): Cambridge University Press; 1991.
  16. Kim A. Community building on the Web. Berkeley (CA): Peachpit Press; 2000.

No hay comentarios: