Knowledge Sharing Process Between Radiologist.

Dorow, PatríciaFernanda; Medeiros, Caroline de; Camozzato, TatianeSabrielaCagol; Silva, Charleneda; Vargas, FrancieleCardosode; Huhn, Andréa

doi:10.21474/ijar01/7380

Cited by 6 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Multimedia Appendix 2 [1,12,18,[33][34][35][36] summarizes the characteristics of the included studies. The 39 studies included in the review were from different areas of the world: 5 (13%) were from the United States; 7 (18%) were from Canada; 6 (15%) were from Australia; 2 (5%) were from the Netherlands; 2 (5%) were from the United Kingdom; 2 (5%) were from Saudi Arabia; 2 (5%) were from Germany; and 13 (33%) were from Taiwan, Ireland, Italy, Kenya, India, Kuwait, South Africa, Sweden, France, Iran, Brazil, Finland, and Norway.…”

Section: Characteristics Of the Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The quality of the articles is shown in Multimedia Appendix 2 [1,12,18,[33][34][35][36]. There were a few articles (2/39, 5%) considered weak as they related to knowledge management in general, types of knowledge, and how it is documented without any evidence of factors that affect knowledge sharing [33,34].…”

Section: Characteristics Of the Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Multimedia Appendix 3 [1,12,18,[33][34][35][36] highlights the results of the quality assessment of the included studies. Of the 39 studies, 26 (67%) were rated as high quality as they met all 5 MMAT criteria (11/26, 42% qualitative; 12/26, 46% quantitative; and 3/26, 12% mixed methods), 11 (28%) were rated as medium quality as they met 3 or 4 of the MMAT criteria (9/11, 82% qualitative; 1/11, 9% quantitative; and 1/11, 9% mixed methods), and 2 (5%) qualitative studies were evaluated as having a low quality as they met <2 of the MMAT criteria.…”

Section: Quality Of the Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, tacit knowledge is considered a lecturer’s tool, which is very important for disseminating knowledge [ 34 ]. Radiologists by nature prefer to establish contact face-to-face with each other in subgroups to share their common interests [ 35 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Factors That Affect Knowledge-Sharing Behaviors in Medical Imaging Departments in Cancer Centers: Systematic Review

Almashmoum¹,

Cunningham²,

Alkhaldi³

et al. 2023

JMIR Hum Factors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Knowledge management plays a significant role in health care institutions. It consists of 4 processes: knowledge creation, knowledge capture, knowledge sharing, and knowledge application. The success of health care institutions relies on effective knowledge sharing among health care professionals, so the facilitators and barriers to knowledge sharing must be identified and understood. Medical imaging departments play a key role in cancer centers. Therefore, an understanding of the factors that affect knowledge sharing in medical imaging departments should be sought to increase patient outcomes and reduce medical errors. Objective The purpose of this systematic review was to identify the facilitators and barriers that affect knowledge-sharing behaviors in medical imaging departments and identify the differences between medical imaging departments in general hospitals and cancer centers. Methods We performed a systematic search in PubMed Central, EBSCOhost (CINAHL), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Elsevier (Scopus), ProQuest, and Clarivate (Web of Science) in December 2021. Relevant articles were identified by examining the titles and abstracts. In total, 2 reviewers independently screened the full texts of relevant papers according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. We included qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies that investigated the facilitators and barriers that affect knowledge sharing. We used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool to assess the quality of the included articles and narrative synthesis to report the results. Results A total of 49 articles were selected for the full in-depth analysis, and 38 (78%) studies were included in the final review, with 1 article added from other selected databases. There were 31 facilitators and 10 barriers identified that affected knowledge-sharing practices in medical imaging departments. These facilitators were divided according to their characteristics into 3 categories: individual, departmental, and technological facilitators. The barriers that hindered knowledge sharing were divided into 4 categories: financial, administrative, technological, and geographical barriers. Conclusions This review highlighted the factors that influenced knowledge-sharing practices in medical imaging departments in cancer centers and general hospitals. In terms of the facilitators and barriers to knowledge sharing, this study shows that these are the same in medical imaging departments, whether in general hospitals or cancer centers. Our findings can be used as guidelines for medical imaging departments to support knowledge-sharing frameworks and enhance knowledge sharing by understanding the facilitators and barriers.

show abstract

Section: Characteristics Of the Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Characteristics Of the Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Quality Of the Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Factors That Affect Knowledge-Sharing Behaviors in Medical Imaging Departments in Cancer Centers: Systematic Review

Almashmoum¹,

Cunningham²,

Alkhaldi³

et al. 2023

JMIR Hum Factors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Sharing knowledge among healthcare professionals is critical to apply that knowledge in their daily work and allow them to create new knowledge that is needed for developing the institutional process. Both tacit and explicit knowledge are important to enhance the knowledge sharing process among healthcare professionals because they are directly related to their experience, and skills [13]. Therefore, identifying a clear maturity model for knowledge sharing in medical imaging is important to help policymaker, and leaders follow it to enhance knowledge sharing practices among healthcare professionals.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Paper 3: - Towards a Knowledge Sharing Maturity Model for medical imaging departments

Almashmoum,

Cunningham,

Ainsworth

2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Knowledge sharing in medical imaging departments is being driven by the need to improve healthcare services, develop healthcare professionals skills, and reduce repetitive mistakes. It is considered an important step in the implementation of knowledge management solutions. By following a maturity model of knowledge sharing, knowledge sharing practices can be improved. The aim of this study was to develop a maturity model knowledge sharing in medical imaging department for helping managers to assess the level of maturity for knowledge sharing practices. Objectives: In the modern healthcare institutions, improvements in healthcare professionals skills and healthcare services are often driven through practicing knowledge sharing behaviours. To understand the level of maturity of knowledge sharing, mangers can follow the indicators of maturity model knowledge sharing and its measurements in order to identify the current level and move to the next level. Methods: This study was conducted in three stages: An overview stage which highlighted the factors that affect knowledge sharing practices in medical imaging departments; an Analysis factor stage which was designed to assess the factors that affect knowledge sharing by using a concurrent mixed method approachs (questionnaires, and semi-structured interviews) in two medical imaging departments; and Structuring maturity model knowledge sharing stage, where a maturity model of knowledge sharing was developed based on the findings of the other stages. Results: The model presented in this study includes 17 indicators divided into 11 components. Those components derived from the findings of the questionnaires and semi-structured interviews that were applied in the medical imaging departments. It consists of five maturity levels: initial, aware, define, managed, and optimised. In each level were included measurements in order to help managers to assess the current level by answering to the measurements questions. Conclusion: This maturity model of knowledge sharing in medical imaging departments allows managers and policy makers to measure the maturity level of knowledge sharing in those departments. Although the model has been applied to the medical imaging departments, it might easily be modified to apply it to other institutions.

show abstract

Evaluating Factors Affecting Knowledge Sharing Among Health Care Professionals in the Medical Imaging Departments of 2 Cancer Centers: Concurrent Mixed Methods Study

Almashmoum,

Cunningham,

Ainsworth

2024

JMIR Hum Factors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Knowledge sharing is a crucial part of any knowledge management implementation. It refers to sharing skills and experience among team members in an organization. In a health care setting, sharing knowledge, whether tacit or explicit, is important and can lead to better health care services. In medical imaging departments, knowledge sharing can be of particular importance. There are several factors that affect knowledge-sharing practices in medical imaging departments: individual, departmental, and technological. Evaluating the importance of these factors and understanding their use can help with improving knowledge-sharing practices in medical imaging departments. Objective We aimed to assess the level of motivation, identify current knowledge-sharing tools, and evaluate factors affecting knowledge sharing in the medical imaging departments of 2 cancer centers, The Christie, United Kingdom, and the Kuwait Cancer Control Center (KCCC). Methods A concurrent mixed methods study was conducted through nonprobability sampling techniques between February 1, 2023, and July 30, 2023. Semistructured interviews were used to validate the results of the quantitative analysis. Data were collected using an electronic questionnaire that was distributed among health care professionals in both cancer centers using Qualtrics. Semistructured interviews were conducted online using Microsoft Teams. The quantitative data were analyzed using the Qualtrics MX software to report the results for each question, whereas the qualitative data were analyzed using a thematic approach with codes classified through NVivo. Results In total, 56 respondents from the KCCC and 29 from The Christie participated, with a 100% response rate (56/56, 100% and 29/29, 100%, respectively) based on the Qualtrics survey tool. A total of 59% (17/29) of health care professionals from The Christie shared their knowledge using emails and face-to-face communication as their main tools on a daily basis, and 57% (32/56) of health care professionals from the KCCC used face-to-face communication for knowledge sharing. The mean Likert-scale score of all the components that assessed the factors that affected knowledge-sharing behaviors fell between “somewhat agree” and “strongly agree” in both centers, excepting extrinsic motivation, which was rated as “neither agree nor disagree.” This was similar to the results related to incentives. It was shown that 52% (15/29) of health care professionals at The Christie had no incentives to encourage knowledge-sharing practices. Therefore, establishing clear policies to manage incentives is important to increase knowledge-sharing practices. Conclusions This study offered an evaluation of factors that affect knowledge sharing in 2 cancer centers. Most health care professionals were aware of the importance of knowledge-sharing practices in enhancing health care services. Several challenges were identified, such as time constraints, a lack of staff, and the language barrier, which limit knowledge-sharing practices. Therefore, establishing a clear policy for knowledge sharing is vital to practicing knowledge-sharing behaviors and facing any challenges that limit this practice.

show abstract

Knowledge Sharing Process Between Radiologist.

Cited by 6 publications

References 2 publications

Factors That Affect Knowledge-Sharing Behaviors in Medical Imaging Departments in Cancer Centers: Systematic Review

Factors That Affect Knowledge-Sharing Behaviors in Medical Imaging Departments in Cancer Centers: Systematic Review

Paper 3: - Towards a Knowledge Sharing Maturity Model for medical imaging departments

Evaluating Factors Affecting Knowledge Sharing Among Health Care Professionals in the Medical Imaging Departments of 2 Cancer Centers: Concurrent Mixed Methods Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About