Dataset Information

Barriers and facilitators to the uptake of new medicines into clinical practice: a systematic review

ABSTRACT:

Background

Implementation and uptake of novel and cost-effective medicines can improve patient health outcomes and healthcare efficiency. However, the uptake of new medicines into practice faces a wide range of obstacles. Earlier reviews provided insights into determinants for new medicine uptake (such as medicine, prescriber, patient, organization, and external environment factors). However, the methodological approaches used had limitations (e.g., single author, narrative review, narrow search, no quality assessment of reviewed evidence). This systematic review aims to identify barriers and facilitators affecting the uptake of new medicines into clinical practice and identify areas for future research.

Method

A systematic search of literature was undertaken within seven databases: Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, SCOPUS, and PsychINFO. Included in the review were qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies focused on adult participants (18 years and older) requiring or taking new medicine(s) for any condition, in the context of healthcare organizations and which identified factors affecting the uptake of new medicines. The methodological quality was assessed using QATSDD tool. A narrative synthesis of reported factors was conducted using framework analysis and a conceptual framework was utilised to group them.

Results

A total of 66 studies were included. Most studies (n = 62) were quantitative and used secondary data (n = 46) from various databases, e.g., insurance databases. The identified factors had a varied impact on the uptake of the different studied new medicines. Differently from earlier reviews, patient factors (patient education, engagement with treatment, therapy preferences), cost of new medicine, reimbursement and formulary conditions, and guidelines were suggested to influence the uptake. Also, the review highlighted that health economics, wider organizational factors, and underlying behaviours of adopters were not or under explored.

Conclusion

This systematic review has identified a broad range of factors affecting the uptake of new medicines within healthcare organizations, which were grouped into patient, prescriber, medicine, organizational, and external environment factors. This systematic review also identifies additional factors affecting new medicine use not reported in earlier reviews, which included patient influence and education level, cost of new medicines, formulary and reimbursement restrictions, and guidelines.

Registration

PROSPERO database (CRD42018108536).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-07196-4.

SUBMITTER: Medlinskiene K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8570007 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveThe study sought to identify barriers to and facilitators of point-of-care information seeking and use of knowledge resources.Materials and methodsWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library from 1991 to February 2017. We included qualitative studies in any language exploring barriers to and facilitators of point-of-care information seeking or use of electronic knowledge resources. Two authors independently extracted data on users, study design, and study quality. We inductively identified specific barriers or facilitators and from these synthesized a model of key determinants of information-seeking behaviors.ResultsForty-five qualitative studies were included, reporting data derived from interviews (n = 26), focus groups (n = 21), ethnographies (n = 6), logs (n = 4), and usability studies (n = 2). Most studies were performed within the context of general medicine (n = 28) or medical specialties (n = 13). We inductively identified 58 specific barriers and facilitators and then created a model reflecting 5 key determinants of information-seeking behaviors: time includes subthemes of time availability, efficiency of information seeking, and urgency of information need; accessibility includes subthemes of hardware access, hardware speed, hardware portability, information restriction, and cost of resources; personal skills and attitudes includes subthemes of computer literacy, information-seeking skills, and contextual attitudes about information seeking; institutional attitudes, cultures, and policies includes subthemes describing external individual and institutional information-seeking influences; and knowledge resource features includes subthemes describing information-seeking efficiency, information content, information organization, resource familiarity, information credibility, information currency, workflow integration, compatibility of recommendations with local processes, and patient educational support.ConclusionsAddressing these determinants of information-seeking behaviors may facilitate clinicians' question answering to improve patient care.

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:BackgroundInvolving patients in their healthcare using shared decision-making (SDM) is promoted through policy and research, yet its implementation in routine practice remains slow. Research into SDM has stemmed from primary and secondary care contexts, and research into the implementation of SDM in tertiary care settings has not been systematically reviewed. Furthermore, perspectives on SDM beyond those of patients and their treating clinicians may add insights into the implementation of SDM. This systematic review aimed to review literature exploring barriers and facilitators to implementing SDM in hospital settings from multiple stakeholder perspectives.MethodsThe search strategy focused on peer-reviewed qualitative studies with the primary aim of identifying barriers and facilitators to implementing SDM in hospital (tertiary care) settings. Studies from the perspective of patients, clinicians, health service administrators, and decision makers, government policy makers, and other stakeholders (for example researchers) were eligible for inclusion. Reported qualitative results were mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to identify behavioural barriers and facilitators to SDM.ResultsTitles and abstracts of 8724 articles were screened and 520 were reviewed in full text. Fourteen articles met inclusion criteria. Most studies (n = 12) were conducted in the last four years; only four reported perspectives in addition to the patient-clinician dyad. In mapping results to the TDF, the dominant themes were Environmental Context and Resources, Social/Professional Role and Identity, Knowledge and Skills, and Beliefs about Capabilities. A wide range of barriers and facilitators across individual, organisational, and system levels were reported. Barriers specific to the hospital setting included noisy and busy ward environments and a lack of private spaces in which to conduct SDM conversations.ConclusionsSDM implementation research in hospital settings appears to be a young field. Future research should build on studies examining perspectives beyond the clinician-patient dyad and further consider the role of organisational- and system-level factors. Organisations wishing to implement SDM in hospital settings should also consider factors specific to tertiary care settings in addition to addressing their organisational and individual SDM needs.Trial registrationThe protocol for the review is registered on the Open Science Framework and can be found at https://osf.io/da645/ , DOI https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/DA645 .

Project description:Digital health technology (DHT) has the potential to revolutionize healthcare delivery but its uptake has been low in clinical and research settings. The factors that contribute to the limited adoption of DHT, particularly in cardiovascular settings, are unclear. The objective of this review was to determine the barriers and facilitators of DHT uptake from the perspective of patients, clinicians, and researchers. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases for studies published from inception to May 2020 that reported barriers and/or facilitators of DHT adoption in cardiovascular care. We extracted data on study design, setting, cardiovascular condition, and type of DHT. We conducted a thematic analysis to identify barriers and facilitators of DHT uptake. The search identified 3075 unique studies, of which 29 studies met eligibility criteria. Studies employed: qualitative methods (n = 13), which included interviews and focus groups; quantitative methods (n = 5), which included surveys; or a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods (n = 11). Twenty-five studies reported patient-level barriers, most common of which were difficult-to-use technology (n=7) and a poor internet connection (n=7). Six studies reported clinician-level barriers, which included increased workload (n=4) and a lack of integration with electronic medical records (n=3).Twenty-four studies reported patient-level facilitators, which included improved communication with clinicians (n=10) and personalized technology (n=6). Four studies reported clinician-level facilitators, which included approval and organizational support from cardiology departments and/or hospitals (n=3) and technologies that improved efficiency (n=3). No studies reported researcher-level barriers or facilitators. In summary, internet access, user-friendliness, organizational support, workflow efficiency, and data integration were reported as important factors in the uptake of DHT by patients and clinicians. These factors can be considered when selecting and implementing DHTs in cardiovascular clinical settings.

Project description:Aim and objectivesThe aim of this study was to investigate current advanced practice Masters students' experience of clinical supervision, to explore how clinical supervision works in practice and to identify students' perceptions of the facilitators and barriers to clinical supervision in their workplace.BackgroundAdvanced practitioners, and in particular nurses, play a pivotal role in delivering health care across acute and primary care settings. These non-medical professionals fulfil a rapidly expanding proportion of roles traditionally undertaken by medically qualified staff within the National Health Service in the United Kingdom and often lead specialist clinics and services. To prepare for the advanced practice role, individuals are required to undertake a Master's in advanced practice to develop the required skills and knowledge and work in clinical practice with a clinical assessor/supervisor to demonstrate competence and performance.DesignA mixed method study using an online descriptive cross-sectional survey and qualitative data were collected via focus groups and has been reported using the Good Reporting of a Mixed Methods Study checklist.ResultsA total of 79 students completed the online survey (from 145 AP students), a response rate of 55%. Most respondents were nurses (n = 73) with 49 (62%) in a formal advanced practice trainee role, and the majority believed their clinical supervisor had a good understanding of advanced practice and the advanced practice role. Two focus groups were held with 16 participants in total. Thematic analysis revealed five themes: (a) perceived level and amount of support from clinical supervisors, (b) skill level of clinical supervisors, (c) physicians and their perceptions on supervising, Advanced practitioners (d) clinical supervisors' preparation for the role and (e) transition from trainee to qualified advanced practitioner.ConclusionThe survey revealed that advanced practitioner students perceived that clinical supervisors and workplace colleagues had a good understanding of the advanced practice role with good levels of support in practice. A more coherent approach is required for clinical supervision and an implementation framework that can be formally evaluated.Relevance to clinical practiceSeveral significant barriers to clinical supervision for advanced practitioner students were identified, and there are currently more barriers (including COVID-19) than facilitators.

Project description:BackgroundAllied Health Professionals today are required, more than ever before, to demonstrate their impact. However, despite at least 20 years of expectation, many services fail to deliver routine outcome measurement in practice. This systematic review investigates what helps and hinders routine outcome measurement of allied health professionals practice.MethodsA systematic review protocol was developed comprising: a defined search strategy for PsycINFO, MEDLINE and CINHAL databases and inclusion criteria and systematic procedures for data extraction and quality appraisal. Studies were included if they were published in English and investigated facilitators and/or barriers to routine outcome measurement by allied health professionals. No restrictions were placed on publication type, design, country, or year of publication. Reference lists of included publications were searched to identify additional papers. Descriptive methods were used to synthesise the findings.Results960 papers were retrieved; 15 met the inclusion criteria. Professional groups represented were Physiotherapy, Occupational Therapy, and Speech and Language Therapy. The included literature varied in quality and design. Facilitators and barriers to routine outcome measurement exist at individual, managerial and organisational levels. Key factors affecting professionals' use of routine outcome measurement include: professionals' level of knowledge and confidence about using outcome measures, and the degree of organisational and peer-support professionals received with a view to promoting their work in practice.ConclusionsWhilst the importance of routinely measuring outcomes within the allied health professions is well recognised, it has largely failed to be delivered in practice. Factors that influence clinicians' ability and desire to undertake routine outcome measurement are bi-directional: they can act as either facilitators or barriers. Routine outcome measurement may only be deliverable if appropriate action is taken at individual therapist, team, and organisational levels of an organisation.

Project description:IntroductionClinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are designed to improve the quality of care and reduce unjustified individual variation in clinical practice. Knowledge of the barriers and facilitators that influence the implementation of the CPG recommendations is the first step in creating strategies to improve health outcomes. The present systematic meta-review sought to explore the barriers and facilitators for the implementation of CPGs.MethodsA search was conducted in the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Health System Evidence and International Guideline Library (G-I-N) databases. Systematic reviews of qualitative, quantitative or mixed-methods studies that identified barriers or facilitators for the implementation of CPGs were included. The selection of the title and abstract, the evaluation of the full text, extraction of the data and the quality assessment were carried out by two independent reviewers. To summarise the evidence, we grouped the barriers and facilitators according to the following contexts: political and social, health organisational system, guidelines, health professionals and patients.ResultsOverall, 25 systematic reviews were selected. The relevant barriers in the social-political context were the absence of a leader, difficulties with teamwork and a lack of agreement with colleagues. Relevant barriers in the health system were a lack of time, financial problems and a lack of specialised personnel. Barriers of the CPGs included a lack of clarity and a lack of credibility in the evidence. Regarding the health professional, a lack of knowledge about the CPG and confidence in oneself were relevant. Regarding patients, a negative attitude towards implementation, a lack of knowledge about the CPG and sociocultural beliefs played a role. Some of the most frequent facilitators were consistent leadership, commitment of the members of the team, administrative support of the institution, existence of multidisciplinary teams, application of technology to improve the practice and education regarding the guidelines.ConclusionsThe barriers and facilitators described in this review are factors that influence the implementation of evidence in clinical practice. Knowledge of these factors should contribute to the development of a theoretical basis for the creation of CPG implementation strategies to improve professional practice and health outcomes for patients.