Knowledge translation to fitness trainers: A systematic review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>This study investigates approaches for translating evidence-based knowledge for use by fitness trainers. Specific questions were: Where do fitness trainers get their evidence-based information? What types of interventions are effective for translating evidence-based knowledge for use by fitness trainers? What are the barriers and facilitators to the use of evidence-based information by fitness trainers in their practice?</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We describe a systematic review of studies about knowledge translation interventions targeting fitness trainers. Fitness trainers were defined as individuals who provide exercise program design and supervision services to the public. Nurses, physicians, physiotherapists, school teachers, athletic trainers, and sport team strength coaches were excluded.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of 634 citations, two studies were eligible for inclusion: a survey of 325 registered health fitness professionals (66% response rate) and a qualitative study of 10 fitness instructors. Both studies identified that fitness trainers obtain information from textbooks, networking with colleagues, scientific journals, seminars, and mass media. Fitness trainers holding higher levels of education are reported to use evidence-based information sources such as scientific journals compared to those with lower education levels, who were reported to use mass media sources. The studies identified did not evaluate interventions to translate evidence-based knowledge for fitness trainers and did not explore factors influencing uptake of evidence in their practice.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Little is known about how fitness trainers obtain and incorporate new evidence-based knowledge into their practice. Further exploration and specific research is needed to better understand how emerging health-fitness evidence can be translated to maximize its use by fitness trainers providing services to the general public.</p

A Measurement Model of the Dimensions and Types of Informal Organizational Control: An Empirical Test in a B2B Sales Context

Sales organizations are replete with informal forms of organizational control. Despite this, marketing and management literature has primarily focused on the theoretical development and empirical testing of formal, managerial forms of control. One reason research on informal controls has lagged is a lack of comprehensive measurement scales. Specifically, existing measures of the three principal types of informal controls—self, social, and cultural—do not capture the full dimensionality of the constructs (i.e., information, reward, and punishment aspects of informal controls). The authors take steps to remedy this situation by (1) outlining nine distinct dimensional types of informal control based on organizational control theory, (2) developing scales to measure the nine informal control constructs in a qualitative field study with 28 B2B salespeople, and (3) empirically validating the scales by establishing their psychometric properties and nomological validity using data collected from a diverse panel of 750 B2B salespeople

Sales Management Control Systems: Review, Synthesis, and Directions for Future Exploration

Sales management control systems (SMCSs) are designed to align salespeople’s activities and actions with organizational objectives. This article reviews and synthesizes over 50 SMCS articles published in sales, marketing, and management journals over the past 30 years. We begin by building a comprehensive framework that enables us to classify prior research into digestible categories (e.g., SMCSs as antecedents, SMCSs as consequences). Next, we present an analysis of gaps in the literature. Among other findings, our analysis reveals that there is an overwhelming focus on the use of formal (specifically behavior- and outcome-based) controls as compared to their informal control counterparts. Finally, we suggest avenues for future research: (1) mapping and understanding the full spectrum of control mechanisms, (2) developing a fuller understanding of the often-overlooked forms of control (e.g., input and cultural controls), and (3) more thoroughly analyzing how controls operate (or do not operate) as an integrated system

A measurement model of the dimensions and types of informal organizational control: An empirical test in a B2B sales context

Sales organizations are replete with informal forms of organizational control. Despite this, marketing and management literature has primarily focused on the theoretical development and empirical testing of formal, managerial forms of control. One reason research on informal controls has lagged is a lack of comprehensive measurement scales. Specifically, existing measures of the three principal types of informal controls—self, social, and cultural—do not capture the full dimensionality of the constructs (i.e., information, reward, and punishment aspects of informal controls). The authors take steps to remedy this situation by (1) outlining nine distinct dimensional types of informal control based on organizational control theory, (2) developing scales to measure the nine informal control constructs in a qualitative field study with 28 B2B salespeople, and (3) empirically validating the scales by establishing their psychometric properties and nomological validity using data collected from a diverse panel of 750 B2B salespeople

Pediatric Oncologists’ Experiences Returning and Incorporating Genomic Sequencing Results into Cancer Care

Pediatric oncologists’ perspectives around returning and incorporating tumor and germline genomic sequencing (GS) results into cancer care are not well-described. To inform optimization of cancer genomics communication, we assessed oncologists’ experiences with return of genomic results (ROR), including their preparation/readiness for ROR, collaboration with genetic counselors (GCs) during ROR, and perceived challenges. The BASIC3 study paired pediatric oncologists with GCs to return results to patients’ families. We thematically analyzed 24 interviews with 12 oncologists at two post-ROR time points. Oncologists found pre-ROR meetings with GCs and geneticists essential to interpreting patients’ reports and communicating results to families. Most oncologists took a collaborative ROR approach where they discussed tumor findings and GCs discussed germline findings. Oncologists perceived many roles for GCs during ROR, including answering families’ questions and describing information in lay language. Challenges identified included conveying uncertain information in accessible language, limits of oncologists’ genetics expertise, and navigating families’ emotional responses. Oncologists emphasized how GCs’ and geneticists’ support was essential to ROR, especially for germline findings. GS can be successfully integrated into cancer care, but to account for the GC shortage, alternative ROR models and access to genetics resources will be needed to better support families and avoid burdening oncologists