Dataset Information

Attributes of context relevant to healthcare professionals' use of research evidence in clinical practice: a multi-study analysis.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:To increase the likelihood of successful implementation of evidence-based practices, researchers, knowledge users, and healthcare professionals must consider aspects of context that promote and hinder implementation in their setting. The purpose of the current study was to identify contextual attributes and their features relevant to implementation by healthcare professionals and compare and contrast these attributes and features across different clinical settings and healthcare professional roles. METHODS:We conducted a secondary analysis of 145 semi-structured interviews comprising 11 studies (10 from Canada and one from Australia) investigating healthcare professionals' perceived barriers and enablers to their use of research evidence in clinical practice. The data was collected using semi-structured interview guides informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework across different healthcare professional roles, settings, and practices. We analyzed these data inductively, using constant comparative analysis, to identify attributes of context and their features reported in the interviews. We compared these data by (1) setting (primary care, hospital-medical/surgical, hospital-emergency room, hospital-critical care) and (2) professional role (physicians and residents, nurses and organ donor coordinators). RESULTS:We identified 62 unique features of context, which we categorized under 14 broader attributes of context. The 14 attributes were resource access, work structure, patient characteristics, professional role, culture, facility characteristics, system features, healthcare professional characteristics, financial, collaboration, leadership, evaluation, regulatory or legislative standards, and societal influences. We found instances of the majority (n?=?12, 86%) of attributes of context across multiple (n?=?6 or more) clinical behaviors. We also found little variation in the 14 attributes of context by setting (primary care and hospitals) and professional role (physicians and residents, and nurses and organ donor coordinators). CONCLUSIONS:There was considerable consistency in the 14 attributes identified irrespective of the clinical behavior, setting, or professional role, supporting broad utility of the attributes of context identified in this study. There was more variation in the finer-grained features of these attributes with the most substantial variation being by setting.

SUBMITTER: Squires JE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6530177 | biostudies-literature | 2019 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Attributes of context relevant to healthcare professionals' use of research evidence in clinical practice: a multi-study analysis.

Squires Janet E JE Aloisio Laura D LD Grimshaw Jeremy M JM Bashir Kainat K Dorrance Kristin K Coughlin Mary M Hutchinson Alison M AM Francis Jill J Michie Susan S Sales Anne A Brehaut Jamie J Curran Janet J Ivers Noah N Lavis John J Noseworthy Thomas T Vine Jocelyn J Hillmer Michael M Graham Ian D ID

Implementation science : IS 20190522 1

<h4>Background</h4>To increase the likelihood of successful implementation of evidence-based practices, researchers, knowledge users, and healthcare professionals must consider aspects of context that promote and hinder implementation in their setting. The purpose of the current study was to identify contextual attributes and their features relevant to implementation by healthcare professionals and compare and contrast these attributes and features across different clinical settings and healthca ...[more]

PMID: 31113449

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The translation of research into clinical practice is a key component of evidence-informed decision making. We implemented a multi-component dissemination and implementation strategy for healthcare professionals (HCPs) called Evidence Rounds. We report the findings of focus groups and interviews with HCPs to explore their perceptions of Evidence Rounds and help inform the implementation of future similar initiatives. This is the second paper in a two-part series. METHODS:We employed total population, purposive sampling by targeting all of the health care professionals who attended or presented at group sessions exploring the evidence on clinical questions or topics chosen and presented by the HCPs. We conducted and audio-recorded in-person focus groups and one-to-one interviews, which were then transcribed verbatim. Two authors independently coded transcripts. NVivo software was used to collate the primary data and codes. We analysed data guided by the five steps involved in framework analysis; 1) familiarization 2) identifying a thematic framework 3) indexing 4) charting 5) mapping and interpretation. RESULTS:Thirteen HCPs participated, of which 6 were medical doctors an d 7 were nursing or midwifery staff. We identified the following key domains; organisational readiness for change, barriers and facilitators to attendance, barriers and facilitators to presenting, communication and dissemination of information, and sustainability. During focus groups and interviews HCPs reported that Evidence Rounds had a positive impact on their continuing education and clinical practice. They also provided insights into how future initiatives could be optimised to support and enable them to narrow the gap between research evidence and practice. CONCLUSIONS:Individual, departmental and organisational level contextual factors can play a major role in implementation within complex health services. HCPs highlighted how in combination with clinical guideline development, implementation of evidence could be increased. Further research after a longer period of implementation could investigate how initiatives might be optimised to promote the uptake of evidence, improve implementation and expedite behaviour change.

Project description:BackgroundDespite increasing interest in joint research priority-setting, few studies engage end-user groups in setting research priorities at the intersection of the healthcare and management disciplines. With health systems increasingly establishing performance management programmes to account for and incentivize performance, it is important to conduct research that is actionable by the end-users involved with or impacted by these programmes. The aim of this study was to co-design a research agenda on healthcare performance management with and for end-users in a specific jurisdictional and policy context.MethodsWe undertook a rapid review of the literature on healthcare performance management (n = 115) and conducted end-user interviews (n = 156) that included a quantitative ranking exercise to prioritize five directions for future research. The quantitative rankings were analysed using four methods: mean, median, frequency ranked first or second, and frequency ranked fifth. The interview transcripts were coded inductively and analysed thematically to identify common patterns across participant responses.ResultsSeventy-three individual and group interviews were conducted with 156 end-users representing diverse end-user groups, including administrators, clinicians and patients, among others. End-user groups prioritized different research directions based on their experiences and information needs. Despite this variation, the research direction on motivating performance improvement had the highest overall mean ranking and was most often ranked first or second and least often ranked fifth. The research direction was modified based on end-user feedback to include an explicit behaviour change lens and stronger consideration for the influence of context.ConclusionsJoint research priority-setting resulted in a practice-driven research agenda capable of generating results to inform policy and management practice in healthcare as well as contribute to the literature. The results suggest that end-users are keen to open the "black box" of performance management to explore more nuanced questions beyond "does performance management work?" End-users want to know how, when and why performance management contributes to behaviour change (or fails to) among front-line care providers.

Project description:BackgroundResearch to date has focused on strategies and resources used by effective champions of healthcare change efforts, rather than personal characteristics that contribute to their success. We sought to identify and describe champion attributes influencing outcomes of healthcare change efforts. To examine attributes of champions, we used postpartum contraceptive care as a case study, because recommended services are largely unavailable, and implementation requires significant effort.MethodsWe conducted a comparative case study of the implementation of inpatient postpartum contraceptive care at 11 U.S. maternity hospitals in 2017-18. We conducted site visits that included semi-structured key informant interviews informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Phase one analysis (qualitative content analysis using a priori CFIR codes and cross-case synthesis) showed that implementation leaders ("champions") strongly influenced outcomes across sites. To understand champion effects, phase two inductive analysis included (1) identifying and elaborating key attributes of champions; (2) rating the presence or absence of each attribute in champions; and 3) cross-case synthesis to identify patterns among attributes, context, and implementation outcomes.ResultsWe completed semi-structured interviews with 78 clinicians, nurses, residents, pharmacy and revenue cycle staff, and hospital administrators. All identified champions were obstetrician-gynecologists. Six key attributes of champions emerged: influence, ownership, physical presence at the point of change, persuasiveness, grit, and participative leadership style. These attributes promoted success by enabling champions to overcome institutional siloing, build and leverage professional networks, create tension for change, cultivate a positive learning climate, optimize compatibility with existing workflow, and engage key stakeholders. Not all champion attributes were required for success, and having all attributes did not guarantee success.ConclusionsEffective champions appear to leverage six key attributes to facilitate healthcare change efforts. Prospective evaluations of the interactions among champion attributes, context, and outcomes may further elucidate how champions exert their effects.

Project description:BackgroundPrimary care depends upon a good information flow across professional and structural boundaries to provide the best care for patients. Previous research has mainly focused on Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) within specific professions. Mapping of pan-professional experiences of and attitudes to EBP in publicly funded clinical practice is necessary to deepen the understanding of EBP and its implementation. Thus, this study aimed to investigate healthcare professionals' experiences of and attitudes towards working in accordance with EBP in primary care.MethodsThe study used a convergent mixed methods design divided into two strands: a quantitative enquiry tool (Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale, EBPAS) and a set of qualitative interviews analysed by means of qualitative content analysis. Both strands included all primary care employees with patient interaction in the studied county (n = 625), including doctors, nurses, physiotherapists, psychologists and assistant nurses. Out of the original 625 healthcare professionals, 191 finished the first strand and 8 volunteered for the second strand (2 nurses, 2 physiotherapists, 1 psychiatrist and 3 doctors).ResultsThe EBPAS value of 2.8 (max 4) indicated a generally positive attitude towards EBP amongst the population, which was also evident in the interviews. However, there were additional experiences of not having the ability or resources to engage in EBP. This was illustrated by the theme that emerged from the qualitative content analysis: "The dilemma of the split between theory and reality". Due to the organisational and managerial focus on efficiency rather than quality of care, there were few or no incentives for promoting individual educational or research development.ConclusionsAlthough the general attitude towards EBP is positive, experiences of practising it differ. There is a need to increase knowledge of EBP concepts, requirements and implementation in the clinical setting. The absence of opportunities to do research and collegial debate about new ways of finding and implementing research-based evidence results might influence the quality of care.

Project description:ObjectivesTo clarify the definition of vignette-based methodology in qualitative research and to identify key elements underpinning its development and utilisation in qualitative empirical studies involving healthcare professionals.DesignScoping review according to the Joanna Briggs Institute framework and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines.Data sourcesElectronic databases: Academic Search Complete, CINAHL Plus, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and SocINDEX (January 2000-December 2020).Eligibility criteriaEmpirical studies in English or French with a qualitative design including an explicit methodological description of the development and/or use of vignettes to collect qualitative data from healthcare professionals. Titles and abstracts were screened, and full text was reviewed by pairs of researchers according to inclusion/exclusion criteria.Data extraction and synthesisData extraction included study characteristics, definition, development and utilisation of a vignette, as well as strengths, limitations and recommendations from authors of the included articles. Systematic qualitative thematic analysis was performed, followed by data matrices to display the findings according to the scoping review questions.ResultsTen articles were included. An explicit definition of vignettes was provided in only half the studies. Variations of the development process (steps, expert consultation and pretesting), data collection and analysis demonstrate opportunities for improvement in rigour and transparency of the whole research process. Most studies failed to address quality criteria of the wider qualitative design and to discuss study limitations.ConclusionsVignette-based studies in qualitative research appear promising to deepen our understanding of sensitive and challenging situations lived by healthcare professionals. However, vignettes require conceptual clarification and robust methodological guidance so that researchers can systematically plan their study. Focusing on quality criteria of qualitative design can produce stronger evidence around measures that may help healthcare professionals reflect on and learn to cope with adversity.

Project description:BackgroundThere is growing evidence that context mediates the effects of implementation interventions intended to increase healthcare professionals' use of research evidence in clinical practice. However, conceptual clarity about what comprises context is elusive. The purpose of this study was to advance conceptual clarity on context by developing the Implementation in Context Framework, a meta-framework of the context domains, attributes and features that can facilitate or hinder healthcare professionals' use of research evidence and the effectiveness of implementation interventions in clinical practice.MethodsWe conducted a meta-synthesis of data from three interrelated studies: (1) a concept analysis of published literature on context (n = 70 studies), (2) a secondary analysis of healthcare professional interviews (n = 145) examining context across 11 unique studies and (3) a descriptive qualitative study comprised of interviews with heath system stakeholders (n = 39) in four countries to elicit their tacit knowledge on the attributes and features of context. A rigorous protocol was followed for the meta-synthesis, resulting in development of the Implementation in Context Framework. Following this meta-synthesis, the framework was further refined through feedback from experts in context and implementation science.ResultsIn the Implementation in Context Framework, context is conceptualized in three levels: micro (individual), meso (organizational), and macro (external). The three levels are composed of six contextual domains: (1) actors (micro), (2) organizational climate and structures (meso), (3) organizational social behaviour (meso), (4) organizational response to change (meso), (5) organizational processes (meso) and (6) external influences (macro). These six domains contain 22 core attributes of context and 108 features that illustrate these attributes.ConclusionsThe Implementation in Context Framework is the only meta-framework of context available to guide implementation efforts of healthcare professionals. It provides a comprehensive and critically needed understanding of the context domains, attributes and features relevant to healthcare professionals' use of research evidence in clinical practice. The Implementation in Context Framework can inform implementation intervention design and delivery to better interpret the effects of implementation interventions, and pragmatically guide implementation efforts that enhance evidence uptake and sustainability by healthcare professionals.

Dataset Information

Attributes of context relevant to healthcare professionals' use of research evidence in clinical practice: a multi-study analysis.

Publications

Attributes of context relevant to healthcare professionals' use of research evidence in clinical practice: a multi-study analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets