Processo de tradução do conhecimento em um grupo de especialistas com formação adicional em mestrado e/ou doutorado

• Autor(a) principal: Ferreira, Alexandre Bellotti
• Data de Publicação: 2013
• Tipo de documento: Dissertação
• Idioma: por
• Título da fonte: Repositório Institucional da UFG
• Texto Completo: http://repositorio.bc.ufg.br/tede/handle/tede/4535
• topic: Tradução do conhecimento; Odontologia baseada em evidências e implantes dentários; Knowledge translation; Evidence-based dentistry and dental implants; CIENCIAS DA SAUDE::ODONTOLOGIA

Providing evidence from clinical research is necessary but not enough for the provision of optimal care. Knowledge creation, distillation and dissemination are not enough in their own to ensure the use of knowledge in decision-making. Recognition of this issue has created interest in knowledge translation, also known as KT, which is defined as the methods for closing the gaps from knowledge to practice. In the context of dental implants, technological advances and the evolution of knowledge grew exponentially in the last decade, but little is known about the application of this knowledge in clinical practice. In particular, at the practice of those who should be in a first level, the knowledge multipliers (Masters / PhD). Goal: Identify changes at clinical behavior of a group of specialists which had additional training in the strict sense level (masters and / or PhD), how these changes were perceived, which methods of knowledge translation were reported and the barriers that act as an impediment for the knowledge translation process. Methodology: In this exploratory and qualitative research, the instrument used was an audio recorded interview, open, semi-structured and in-depth. The target population was composed of four dentists experts who work with dental implants and had additional training in the strict sense level (Masters/PhD). They were interviewed one at a time by the same interviewer (researcher). The interviews were manually transcribed by the interviewer and structured into categories and sub-categories that emerged according to the research objective. Results: The results showed that there were changes in clinical practice of these professionals and that, methods such as reading scientific articles and conversations with colleagues were important in this process. The lack of interest and ability to pursue scientific articles were reported as barriers to KT. Conclusions: Changes in clinical practice occurred in this group and that the combination of different methods and visualization colleagues in clinical practice are important factors in KT process. Deepening on these methods, which effectively are able to change clinical practice, opens new perspectives in the teaching / learning process focus on evidence-based practice.