English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The transfer of evidence into clinical practice is the ultimate aim of those engaged in health research. But is this a process that occurs naturally? Can health researchers take it for granted that the evidence they produce will be embraced by clinicians and incorporated into their everyday practice? In this article, we use the example of oral healthcare in dependent older people and the issue of antibiotic prescribing by GDPs to illustrate the fact that successful knowledge transfer between researchers and practitioners cannot be automatically assumed. What is needed, so we argue, are certain tools to facilitate the knowledge transfer, exchange and implementation process. These tools may take the form of human intermediaries, who can occupy the space in between the worlds of research and practice, acting as brokers to mobilise knowledge, or through the establishment of communities of practice. We outline both of these approaches here as a potential solution to the problem of knowledge mobilisation in dentistry.

The knowledge mobilisation challenge: does producing evidence lead to its adoption within dentistry?