Dataset Information

Health professionals' views on the barriers and enablers to evidence-based practice for acute stroke care: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT: Adoption of contemporary evidence-based guidelines for acute stroke management is often delayed due to a range of key enablers and barriers. Recent reviews on such barriers focus mainly on specific acute stroke therapies or generalised stroke care guidelines. This review examined the overall barriers and enablers, as perceived by health professionals which affect how evidence-based practice guidelines (stroke unit care, thrombolysis administration, aspirin usage and decompressive surgery) for acute stroke care are adopted in hospital settings.A systematic search of databases was conducted using MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library and AMED (Allied and Complementary Medicine Database from 1990 to 2016. The population of interest included health professionals working clinically or in roles responsible for acute stroke care. There were no restrictions to the study designs. A quality appraisal tool for qualitative studies by the Joanna Briggs Institute and another for quantitative studies by the Centre for Evidence-Based Management were used in the present study. A recent checklist to classify barriers and enablers to health professionals' adherence to evidence-based practice was also used.Ten studies met the inclusion criteria out of a total of 9832 search results. The main barriers or enablers identified included poor organisational or institutional level support, health professionals' limited skills or competence to use a particular therapy, low level of awareness, familiarity or confidence in the effectiveness of a particular evidence-based therapy, limited medical facilities to support evidence uptake, inadequate peer support among health professionals', complex nature of some stroke care therapies or guidelines and patient level barriers.Despite considerable evidence supporting various specific therapies for stroke care, uptake of these therapies is compromised by barriers across organisational, patients, guideline interventions and health professionals' domains. As a result, we recommend that future interventions and health policy directions should be informed by these findings in order to optimise uptake of best practice acute stroke care. Further studies from low- to middle-income countries are needed to understand the barriers and enablers in such settings.The review protocol was registered in the international prospective register of systematic reviews, PROSPERO 2015 (Registration Number: CRD42015023481 ).

SUBMITTER: Baatiema L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5460544 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Health professionals' views on the barriers and enablers to evidence-based practice for acute stroke care: a systematic review.

Baatiema Leonard L Otim Michael E ME Mnatzaganian George G de-Graft Aikins Ama A Coombes Judith J Somerset Shawn S

Implementation science : IS 20170605 1

<h4>Background</h4>Adoption of contemporary evidence-based guidelines for acute stroke management is often delayed due to a range of key enablers and barriers. Recent reviews on such barriers focus mainly on specific acute stroke therapies or generalised stroke care guidelines. This review examined the overall barriers and enablers, as perceived by health professionals which affect how evidence-based practice guidelines (stroke unit care, thrombolysis administration, aspirin usage and decompress ...[more]

PMID: 28583164

Similar Datasets

Project description:Kangaroo mother care (KMC) is an evidence-based approach to reducing mortality and morbidity in preterm infants. Although KMC is a key intervention package in newborn health initiatives, there is limited systematic information available on the barriers to KMC practice that mothers and other stakeholders face while practicing KMC. This systematic review sought to identify the most frequently reported barriers to KMC practice for mothers, fathers, and health practitioners, as well as the most frequently reported enablers to practice for mothers. We searched nine electronic databases and relevant reference lists for publications reporting barriers or enablers to KMC practice. We identified 1,264 unique publications, of which 103 were included based on pre-specified criteria. Publications were scanned for all barriers / enablers. Each publication was also categorized based on its approach to identification of barriers / enablers, and more weight was assigned to publications which had systematically sought to understand factors influencing KMC practice. Four of the top five ranked barriers to KMC practice for mothers were resource-related: "Issues with the facility environment / resources," "negative impressions of staff attitudes or interactions with staff," "lack of help with KMC practice or other obligations," and "low awareness of KMC / infant health." Considering only publications from low- and middle-income countries, "pain / fatigue" was ranked higher than when considering all publications. Top enablers to practice were included "mother-infant attachment" and "support from family, friends, and other mentors." Our findings suggest that mother can understand and enjoy KMC, and it has benefits for mothers, infants, and families. However, continuous KMC may be physically and emotionally difficult, and often requires support from family members, health practitioners, or other mothers. These findings can serve as a starting point for researchers and program implementers looking to improve KMC programs.

Project description:Osteoarthritis is a highly prevalent and disabling condition. Primary care management of osteoarthritis is generally suboptimal despite evidence for several modestly effective interventions and the availability of high-quality clinical practice guidelines. This report describes a planned study to synthesise the views of primary care clinicians on the barriers and enablers to following recommended management of osteoarthritis, with the aim of providing new interpretations that may facilitate the uptake of recommended treatments, and in turn improve patient care.A systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative studies. 5 databases will be searched using key search terms for qualitative research, evidence-based practice, clinical practice guidelines, osteoarthritis, beliefs, perceptions, barriers, enablers and adherence. A priori inclusion/exclusion criteria include availability of data from primary care clinicians, reports on views regarding management of osteoarthritis, and studies using qualitative methods for both data collection and analysis. At least 2 independent reviewers will identify eligible reports, conduct a critical appraisal of study conduct, extract data and synthesise reported findings and interpretations. Synthesis will follow thematic analysis within a grounded theory framework of inductive coding and iterative theme identification. The reviewers plus co-authors will contribute to the meta-synthesis to find new themes and theories. The Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (CERQual) approach will be used to determine a confidence profile of each finding from the meta-synthesis. The protocol has been registered on PROSPERO and is reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines.Ethical approval is not required. The systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. The results will help to inform policy and practice and assist in the optimisation of management for people with osteoarthritis.CRD42015027543.

Project description:ObjectivesHow advance care planning (ACP) is conceptualised in Australia including when, where and how ACP is best initiated, is unclear. It has been suggested that healthcare delivered in general practice provides an optimal setting for initiation of ACP discussions but uptake remains low. This systematic review and critical interpretive synthesis sought to answer two questions: (1) What are the barriers and enablers to uptake of ACP in general practice? (2) What initiatives have been used to increase uptake of ACP in general practice?DesignA systematic review and critical interpretive synthesis of the peer-reviewed literature was undertaken. A socioecological framework was used to interpret and map the literature across four contextual levels of influence including individual, interpersonal, provider and system levels within a general practice setting.SettingPrimary care general practice settings DATA SOURCES: Searches were undertaken from inception to July 2019 across Ovid Medline, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Scopus, ProQuest and Cochrane Library of systematic reviews.ResultsThe search yielded 4883 non-duplicate studies which were reduced to 54 studies for synthesis. Year of publication ranged from 1991 to 2019 and represented research from nine countries. Review findings identified a diverse and disaggregated body of ACP literature describing barriers and enablers to ACP in general practice, and interventions testing single or multiple mechanisms to improve ACP generally without explicit consideration for level of influence. There was a lack of cohesive guidance in shaping effective ACP interventions and some early indications of structured approaches emerging.ConclusionFindings from this review present an opportunity to strategically apply the ACP research evidence across targeted levels of influence, and with an understanding of mediators and moderators to inform the design of new and enhanced ACP models of care in general practice.Prospero registration numberCRD42018088838.

Project description:BackgroundThere is growing literature on the potential of digital technologies for improving access to, ensuring continuity and quality of health care, and to strengthen health systems. Some studies have reported the cost-effectiveness of teledentistry, its reliability for remote dental screening, diagnosis, consultation, and treatment planning. Nonetheless, current evidence suggests that teledentistry implementation faces many challenges and is not yet adopted by dental health care providers (DHCPs). Developing strategies to improve teledentistry adoption requires an understanding of the factors that promote or hinder its successful implementation.ObjectiveThis systematic review aims to identify and synthetize barriers and enablers to implementing teledentistry as perceived by DHCPs in their clinical practices, using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and the Capacity, Opportunity, and Motivation Behavior (COM-B) model.MethodsThis protocol follows the PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Protocols) checklist. Literature will be searched in the following databases: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and PsycINFO. We will perform additional searches on Google, Google Scholar, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global, screen the references of the included studies to capture additional relevant studies, and contact the authors of studies if we need more details. We will consider studies using qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods. There will be no restrictions on the publication date and dental setting. We will include studies published in French, English, and Portuguese. Two independent reviewers will select the study, extract data, and assess methodological quality using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool's checklist. Data analysis will include a descriptive and a thematic content analysis. We will synthetize and categorize the barriers and enablers using the TDF and COM-B model and present a narrative synthesis of our results using tables, figures, and quotes.ResultsBy March 2023, the literature search has retrieved 7355 publications. We will identify the range of barriers and enablers to implementing teledentistry through DHCPs' perspectives. Considering the critical need for theory-based implementation interventions to improve the use of evidence-informed practices, we will synthesize the factors influencing the adoption of teledentistry based on the TDF domains and the 3 essential conditions predicting behavior change in accordance with the COM-B model. As needed, we will include additional determinants if not included in the TDF. We will conduct some subgroups analyses if studies are sufficient. We expect to complete the review by July 2024.ConclusionsThis review will provide some insights on the determinants of teledentistry implementation as perceived by DHCPs in dental settings. These findings will cater to patients, families, DHCPs, researchers, academic and professional decision-makers, and policy makers. The results of the systematic review could be used to develop theory-led interventions in improving teledentistry implementation.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42021293376; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=293376.International registered report identifier (irrid)PRR1-10.2196/44218.

Project description:BackgroundRisk assessment and risk management are fundamental processes in the delivery of safe and effective mental health care, yet studies have shown that service users are often not directly involved or are unaware that an assessment has taken place. Shared decision-making in mental health systems is supported by research and advocated in policy. This systematic review (PROSPERO: CRD42016050457) aimed to explore the perceived barriers and enablers to implementing shared decision-making in risk assessment and risk management from mental health professionals' perspectives.MethodsPRISMA guidelines were followed in the conduct and reporting of this review. Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, AMED and Internurse were systematically searched from inception to December 2019. Data were mapped directly into the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), a psychological framework that includes 14 domains relevant to behaviour change. Thematic synthesis was used to identify potential barriers and enablers within each domain. Data were then matched to the three components of the COM-B model: Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation.ResultsTwenty studies met the eligibility criteria. The findings of this review indicate that shared decision-making is not a concept commonly used in mental health services when exploring processes of risk assessment and risk management. The key barriers identified were 'power and best interest' (social influences) and 'my professional role and responsibility' (social/professional role and identity). Key enablers were 'therapeutic relationship' (social influences) and 'value collaboration' (reinforcement). The salient barriers, enablers and linked TDF domains matched COM-B components 'opportunity' and 'motivation'.ConclusionThe review highlights the need for further empirical research to better understand current practice and mental health professionals' experiences and attitudes towards shared decision-making in risk assessment and risk management.

Dataset Information

Health professionals' views on the barriers and enablers to evidence-based practice for acute stroke care: a systematic review.

Publications

Health professionals' views on the barriers and enablers to evidence-based practice for acute stroke care: a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets