Dataset Information

Barriers and Facilitators to Rehabilitation Care of Individuals With Spatial Neglect: A Qualitative Study of Professional Views.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To identify barriers and facilitators to achieving optimal inpatient rehabilitation outcome among individuals with spatial neglect (SN).

Design

Cross-sectional, semistructured focus group discussions.

Setting

Rehabilitation hospitals.

Participants

A total of 15 occupational therapists and 14 physical therapists treating patients with SN on 3 campuses of a rehabilitation hospital system (N=29). Six focus group sessions were conducted and audio-recorded for transcription.

Interventions

Not applicable.

Main outcome measures

Not applicable.

Results

Participants identified several patient-related characteristics that posed barriers to treatment, including the symptoms of SN itself, cognitive issues, physical weakness, comorbidities, and reduced therapy engagement. Supportive family members were considered a key facilitator, but lack of preparedness to assume caregiving roles, poor understanding of SN and rehabilitation goals, and inadequate levels of involvement were family-related barriers to successful treatment. Participants expressed that having resources and technologies available at their center to support SN treatment facilitated positive outcomes and perceived limited staff knowledge and skills and poor interclinician communication as barriers to treatment. At the health care system level, barriers included a lack of responsive measures of SN progress and insurer-related issues. Strong continuity of care between transitions was considered an important factor for enabling effective treatment.

Conclusions

Barriers and facilitators to the current practice of SN care were identified from occupational and physical therapists' point of view. Opportunities exist to promote identified facilitators and minimize barriers to improve SN rehabilitation. The present study makes a unique contribution in identifying specific needs for innovative interventions that involve family support and training, promotion of interdisciplinary collaboration, development of interprofessional vocabulary, and continuous treatment and follow-up assessment for SN through care transitions.

SUBMITTER: Chen P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8212009 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo examine the barriers to, and facilitators in, improving diabetes management from the general practice perspective, in advance of the implementation of an integrated model of care in Ireland.DesignQualitative using semistructured interviews.SettingPrimary care in the Republic of Ireland.ParticipantsPurposive sample of 29 general practitioners (GPs) and two practice nurses.MethodsData were analysed using a framework approach.ResultsThe main barriers and facilitators occurred at the level of the health system but had a ripple effect at an organisational, professional and patient level. The lack of targeted remuneration for diabetes management in the Irish health system created apathy in general practice and was perceived to be indicative of the lack of value placed on chronic disease management in the health system. There were 'pockets of interest' among GPs motivated by 'vocational' incentives such as a sense of professional duty; however, this was not sufficient to drive widespread improvement. The hospital service was seen as an essential support for primary care management, although some participants referred to emerging tension between settings. The lack of coordination at the primary-secondary interface resulted in avoidable duplication and an 'in the meantime' period of uncertainty around when patients would be called or recalled by specialist services. Facilitators included the availability of nursing support and serendipitous access to services. The lack of resources in the community was considered to be at odds with policy to shift routine management to general practice, which is fast reaching saturation.ConclusionsAt present, intrinsic motivation is driving the improvement of diabetes care in Ireland. This will not be sufficient to implement the proposed reform including a national model of integrated care. Policymakers need to assess and prepare for the disparate levels of interest and infrastructure in primary care in Ireland to support this change.

Project description:Introduction Children with autism spectrum disorder often face nutrition-related challenges, such as food selectivity, gastrointestinal issues, overweight and obesity, and inadequate nutrient intake. However, the role of routine nutrition-related screening or care by interdisciplinary health professionals is not well understood. This study aimed to compare the beliefs of health professionals with those of parents of autistic children regarding high-priority nutrition-related challenges, barriers and facilitators to care, and desired education and resources related to nutrition for autistic children. Participants Interdisciplinary health professionals (n = 25) (i.e., pediatricians, occupational therapists, speech-language pathologists, board certified behavior analysts, registered dietitians) and parents of autistic children (n = 22). Methods The study used semi-structured phone interviews, which were recorded, transcribed, verified, and double-coded using the Framework Method. Results Thematic analysis of transcripts revealed that while health professionals and parents of autistic children shared some perspectives on nutrition-related challenges and care, they also had distinct viewpoints. Parents emphasized the importance of addressing food selectivity, behavioral eating challenges, sensory issues, and sleep disturbances affecting appetite. Both groups acknowledged the need for tailored support, access to an interdisciplinary care team, and reasonable expectations. Some health professionals perceived parents as lacking motivation or the ability to make changes. In contrast, many parents felt that health professionals lacked the knowledge and motivation to take nutrition or growth concerns seriously. Health professionals acknowledged that their lack of knowledge or capacity to provide nutrition education or referrals was a common barrier to care, particularly given limited community resources. Discussion Health professionals who serve autistic children are motivated to address nutrition-related challenges but lack resources related to nutrition. To promote better health outcomes for autistic children, professionals should identify and support parent motivations around nutrition-related care. Both groups expressed interest in accessing autism-specific resources for education, referral, and screening guidance. Future research could explore the development of healthcare training models that improve the competency of health professionals in providing nutrition care and referral for autistic children.

Project description:IntroductionLow back pain (LBP) is a prevalent musculoskeletal disorder with a wide range of etiologies, ranging from self-limiting conditions to life-threatening diseases. Various modalities are available for the diagnosis and management of patients with LBP. However, many of these health services, known as low-value care (LVC), are unnecessary and impose undue financial costs on patients and health systems. The present study aimed to explore the perceptions of service providers regarding the facilitators and barriers to reducing LVC in the management of LBP in Iran.MethodsThis qualitative descriptive study interviewed a total of 20 participants, including neurosurgeons, physiatrists, orthopedists, and physiotherapists, who were selected through purposive and snowball sampling strategies. The collected data were analyzed using the thematic content analysis approach.ResultsThirty-nine sub-themes, with 183 citations, were identified as barriers, and 31 sub-themes, with 120 citations, were defined as facilitators. Facilitators and barriers to reducing LVC for LBP, according to the interviewees, were categorized into five themes, including: (1) individual provider characteristics; (2) individual patient characteristics; (3) social context; (4) organizational context; and (5) economic and political context. The ten most commonly cited barriers included unrealistic tariffs, provider-induced demand, patient distrust, insufficient time allocation, a lack of insurance coverage, a lack of a comprehensive referral system, a lack of teamwork, cultural challenges, a lack of awareness, and defensive medicine. Barriers such as adherence to clinical guidelines, improving the referral system, improving the cultural status of patients, and facilitators such as strengthening teamwork, developing an appropriate provider-patient relationship, improving the cultural status of the public, motivating the patients, considering an individualized approach, establishing a desirable payment mechanism, and raising the medical tariffs were most repeatedly stated by participants.ConclusionThis study has pointed out a great number of barriers and facilitators that shape the provision of LVC in the management of LBP in Iran. Therefore, it is essential for relevant stakeholders to consider these findings in order to de-implement LVC interventions in the process of LBP management.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To assess barriers and facilitators to de-implementation. DESIGN:A qualitative evidence synthesis with a framework analysis. DATA SOURCES:Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and Rx for Change databases until September 2018 were searched. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA:We included studies that primarily focused on identifying factors influencing de-implementation or the continuation of low-value care, and studies describing influencing factors related to the effect of a de-implementation strategy. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS:The factors were classified on five levels: individual provider, individual patient, social context, organisational context, economic/political context. RESULTS:We identified 333 factors in 81 articles. Factors related to the individual provider (n=131; 74% barriers, 17% facilitators, 9% both barrier/facilitator) were associated with their attitude (n=72; 55%), knowledge/skills (n=43; 33%), behaviour (n=11; 8%) and provider characteristics (n=5; 4%). Individual patient factors (n=58; 72% barriers, 9% facilitators, 19% both barrier/facilitator) were mainly related to knowledge (n=33; 56%) and attitude (n=13; 22%). Factors related to the social context (n=46; 41% barriers, 48% facilitators, 11% both barrier/facilitator) included mainly professional teams (n=23; 50%) and professional development (n=12; 26%). Frequent factors in the organisational context (n=67; 67% barriers, 25% facilitators, 8% both barrier/facilitator) were available resources (n=28; 41%) and organisational structures and work routines (n=24; 36%). Under the category of economic and political context (n=31; 71% barriers, 13% facilitators, 16% both barrier/facilitator), financial incentives were most common (n=27; 87%). CONCLUSIONS:This study provides in-depth insight into the factors within the different (sub)categories that are important in reducing low-value care. This can be used to identify barriers and facilitators in low-value care practices or to stimulate development of strategies that need further refinement. We conclude that multifaceted de-implementation strategies are often necessary for effective reduction of low-value care. Situation-specific knowledge of impeding or facilitating factors across all levels is important for designing tailored de-implementation strategies.