Dataset Information

Healthcare professionals' perspectives of barriers and facilitators in implementing physical activity programmes delivered to cancer survivors in a shared-care model: a qualitative study.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:The positive impact of physical activity programmes has been recognised, but the current uptake is low. Authorities believe delivering these programmes in a shared-care model is a future perspective. The present study aimed to identify the barriers and facilitators affecting physical activity programme implementation in a shared-care model delivered with the cooperation of all the types of healthcare professionals involved. METHODS:Thirty-one individual interviews with primary healthcare professionals (PHPs) and four focus group interviews with 39 secondary healthcare professionals (SHPs) were undertaken. We used Grol and Flottorp's theoretical models to identify barriers and facilitators in six domains: (1) physical activity programmes, (2) patients, (3) healthcare professionals, (4) social setting, (5) organisation and (6) law and governance. RESULTS:In the domain of physical activity programmes, those physical activity programmes that were non-tailored to the patients' needs impeded successful implementation. In the domain of healthcare professionals, the knowledge and skills pertaining to physical activity programmes and non-commitment of healthcare professionals impeded implementation. HCPs expressed their concerns about the negative influence of the patient's social network. Most barriers occurred in the domain of organisation. The PHPs and SHPs raised concerns about ineffective collaboration and networks between hospitals. Only the PHPs raised concerns about poor communication, indeterminate roles, and lack of collaboration with SHPs. Insufficient and unclear insurance coverage of physical activity programmes was a barrier in the domain of law and governance. CONCLUSIONS:Improving the domain of organisation seems the most challenging because the collaboration, communication, networks, and interactive roles between the PHPs and SHPs are all inadequate. Survivor care plans, more use of health information technology, improved rehabilitation guidelines, and better networks might benefit implementing physical activity programmes.

SUBMITTER: IJsbrandy C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7256088 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Healthcare professionals' perspectives of barriers and facilitators in implementing physical activity programmes delivered to cancer survivors in a shared-care model: a qualitative study.

IJsbrandy Charlotte C van Harten Wim H WH Gerritsen Winald R WR Hermens Rosella P M G RPMG Ottevanger Petronella B PB

Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer 20191202 7

<h4>Background</h4>The positive impact of physical activity programmes has been recognised, but the current uptake is low. Authorities believe delivering these programmes in a shared-care model is a future perspective. The present study aimed to identify the barriers and facilitators affecting physical activity programme implementation in a shared-care model delivered with the cooperation of all the types of healthcare professionals involved.<h4>Methods</h4>Thirty-one individual interviews with ...[more]

PMID: 31792881

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundShared decision-making is advocated because of its potential to improve the quality of the decision-making process for patients and ultimately, patient outcomes. However, current evidence suggests that shared decision-making has not yet been widely adopted by health professionals. Therefore, a systematic review was performed on the barriers and facilitators to implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice as perceived by health professionals.MethodsCovering the period from 1990 to March 2006, PubMed, Embase, CINHAL, PsycINFO, and Dissertation Abstracts were searched for studies in English or French. The references from included studies also were consulted. Studies were included if they reported on health professionals' perceived barriers and facilitators to implementing shared decision-making in their practices. Shared decision-making was defined as a joint process of decision making between health professionals and patients, or as decision support interventions including decision aids, or as the active participation of patients in decision making. No study design was excluded. Quality of the studies included was assessed independently by two of the authors. Using a pre-established taxonomy of barriers and facilitators to implementing clinical practice guidelines in practice, content analysis was performed.ResultsThirty-one publications covering 28 unique studies were included. Eleven studies were from the UK, eight from the USA, four from Canada, two from The Netherlands, and one from each of the following countries: France, Mexico, and Australia. Most of the studies used qualitative methods exclusively (18/28). Overall, the vast majority of participants (n = 2784) were physicians (89%). The three most often reported barriers were: time constraints (18/28), lack of applicability due to patient characteristics (12/28), and lack of applicability due to the clinical situation (12/28). The three most often reported facilitators were: provider motivation (15/28), positive impact on the clinical process (11/28), and positive impact on patient outcomes (10/28).ConclusionThis systematic review reveals that interventions to foster implementation of shared decision-making in clinical practice will need to address a broad range of factors. It also reveals that on this subject there is very little known about any health professionals others than physicians. Future studies about implementation of shared decision-making should target a more diverse group of health professionals.

Project description:BackgroundDecision Boxes are summaries of the most important benefits and harms of health interventions provided to clinicians before they meet the patient, to prepare them to help patients make informed and value-based decisions. Our objective is to explore the barriers and facilitators to using Decision Boxes in clinical practice, more precisely factors stemming from (1) the Decision Boxes themselves, (2) the primary healthcare team (PHT), and (3) the primary care practice environment.Methods/designA two-phase mixed methods study will be conducted. Eight Decision Boxes relevant to primary care, and written in both English and in French, will be hosted on a website together with a tutorial to introduce the Decision Box. The Decision Boxes will be delivered as weekly emails over a span of eight weeks to clinicians of PHTs (family physicians, residents and nurses) in five primary care clinics located across two Canadian provinces. Using a web-questionnaire, clinicians will rate each Decision Box with the Information Assessment Method (cognitive impacts, relevance, usefulness, expected benefits) and with a questionnaire based on the Theory of Planned Behavior to study the determinants of clinicians' intention to use what they learned from that Decision Box in their patient encounter (attitude, social norm, perceived behavioral control). Web-log data will be used to monitor clinicians' access to the website. Following the 8-week intervention, we will conduct semi-structured group interviews with clinicians and individual interviews with clinic administrators to explore contextual factors influencing the use of the Decision Boxes. Data collected from questionnaires, focus groups and individual interviews will be combined to identify factors potentially influencing implementation of Decision Boxes in clinical practice by clinicians of PHTs.ConclusionsThis project will allow tailoring of Decision Boxes and their delivery to overcome the specific barriers identified by clinicians of PHTs to improve the implementation of shared decision making in this setting.

Project description:Background: COVID-19 has brought to the fore an urgent need for secure information and communication technology (ICT) supported healthcare delivery, as the pertinence of infection control and social distancing continues. Telemedicine for paediatric care warrants special consideration around logistics, consent and assent, child welfare and communication that may differ to adult services. There is no systematic evidence synthesis available that outlines the implementation issues for incorporating telemedicine to paediatric services generally, or how users perceive these issues. Methods: We conducted a rapid mixed-methods evidence synthesis to identify barriers, facilitators, and documented stakeholder experiences of implementing paediatric telemedicine, to inform the pandemic response. A systematic search was undertaken by a research librarian in MEDLINE for relevant studies. All identified records were blind double-screened by two reviewers. Implementation-related data were extracted, and studies quality appraised using the Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool. Qualitative findings were analysed thematically and then mapped to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Quantitative findings about barriers and facilitators for implementation were narratively synthesised. Results: We identified 27 eligible studies (19 quantitative; 5 mixed-methods, 3 qualitative). Important challenges highlighted from the perspective of the healthcare providers included issues with ICT proficiency, lack of confidence in the quality/reliability of the technology, connectivity issues, concerns around legal issues, increased administrative burden and/or fear of inability to conduct thorough examinations with reliance on subjective descriptions. Facilitators included clear dissemination of the aims of ICT services, involvement of staff throughout planning and implementation, sufficient training, and cultivation of telemedicine champions. Families often expressed preference for in-person visits but those who had tried tele-consultations, lived far from clinics, or perceived increased convenience with technology considered telemedicine more favourably. Concerns from parents included the responsibility of describing their child's condition in the absence of an in-person examination. Discussion: Healthcare providers and families who have experienced tele-consultations generally report high satisfaction and usability for such services. The use of ICT to facilitate paediatric healthcare consultations is feasible for certain clinical encounters and can work well with appropriate planning and quality facilities in place.

Project description:IntroductionThe burden of chronic kidney disease (CKD) is rising globally including in Singapore. Primary care is the first point of contact for most patients with early stages of CKD. However, several barriers to optimal CKD management exist. Knowing healthcare professionals' (HCPs) perspectives is important to understand how best to strengthen CKD services in the primary care setting. Integrating a theory-based framework, we explored HCPs' perspectives on the facilitators of and barriers to CKD management in primary care clinics in Singapore.MethodsIn-depth interviews were conducted on a purposive sample of 20 HCPs including 13 physicians, 2 nurses and 1 pharmacist from three public primary care polyclinics, and 4 nephrologists from one referral hospital. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and thematically analyzed underpinned by the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) version 2.ResultsNumerous facilitators of and barriers to CKD management identified. HCPs perceived insufficient attention is given to CKD in primary care and highlighted several barriers including knowledge and practice gaps, ineffective CKD diagnosis disclosure, limitations in decision-making for nephrology referrals, consultation time, suboptimal care coordination, and lack of CKD awareness and self-management skills among patients. Nevertheless, intensive CKD training of primary care physicians, structured CKD-care pathways, multidisciplinary team-based care, and prioritizing nephrology referrals with risk-based assessment were key facilitators. Participants underscored the importance of improving awareness and self-management skills among patients. Primary care providers expressed willingness to manage early-stage CKD as a collaborative care model with nephrologists. Our findings provide valuable insights to design targeted interventions to enhance CKD management in primary care in Singapore that may be relevant to other countries.ConclusionsThe are several roadblocks to improving CKD management in primary care settings warranting urgent attention. Foremost, CKD deserves greater priority from HCPs and health planners. Multipronged approaches should urgently address gaps in care coordination, patient-physician communication, and knowledge. Strategies could focus on intensive CKD-oriented training for primary care physicians and building novel team-based care models integrating structured CKD management, risk-based nephrology referrals coupled with education and motivational counseling for patients. Such concerted efforts are likely to improve outcomes of patients with CKD and reduce the ESKD burden.

Project description:BackgroundDisease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are the cornerstone of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment. However, the full benefits of DMARDs are often not realized because many patients are sub-optimally adherent to their medication. In order to optimize adherence, it is essential that healthcare professionals (HCPs) understand patients' barriers and facilitators for medication use. Insight in these barriers and facilitators may foster the dialogue about adequate medication use between HCPs and patients. What HCPs perceive as barriers and facilitators has, so far, scarcely been investigated. This study aimed to identify the perceptions of HCPs on patients' barriers and facilitators that might influence their adherence.MethodsThis qualitative study was performed using semi structured in-depth interviews with HCPs. An interview guide was used, based on an adjusted version of the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Thematic analysis was conducted to identify factors that influence barriers and facilitators to DMARD use according to HCPs.ResultsFifteen HCPs (5 rheumatologists, 5 nurses and 5 pharmacists) were interviewed. They mentioned a variety of factors that, according to their perceptions, influence DMARD adherence in patients with RA. Besides therapy-related factors, such as (onset of) medication effectiveness and side-effects, most variation was found within patient-related factors and reflected patients' beliefs, ways of coping, and (self-management) skills toward medication and their condition. In addition, factors related to the condition (e.g., level of disease activity), healthcare team and system (e.g., trust in HCP), and social and economic context (e.g. support, work shifts) were reported.ConclusionsThis study provided insights in HCPs' perceptions of the barriers and facilitators to DMARD use patients with RA. Most factors that were mentioned were patient-related and potentially modifiable. When physicians understand patients' perceptions on medication use, adherence to DMARDs can probably be optimized in patients with RA leading to more effectiveness of treatment outcomes.

Dataset Information

Healthcare professionals' perspectives of barriers and facilitators in implementing physical activity programmes delivered to cancer survivors in a shared-care model: a qualitative study.

Publications

Healthcare professionals' perspectives of barriers and facilitators in implementing physical activity programmes delivered to cancer survivors in a shared-care model: a qualitative study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets