PROTOCOL: Barriers and facilitators to stakeholder engagement in health guideline development: A qualitative evidence synthesis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Magwood O
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9038083 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jun
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
PROTOCOL: Barriers and facilitators to stakeholder engagement in health guideline development: A qualitative evidence synthesis.
Magwood Olivia O Riddle Alison A Petkovic Jennifer J Lytvyn Lyubov L Khabsa Joanne J Atwere Pearl P Akl Elie A EA Campbell Pauline P Welch Vivian V Smith Maureen M Mustafa Reem A RA Limburg Heather H Dans Leonila F LF Skoetz Nicole N Grant Sean S Concannon Tom T Tugwell Peter P
Campbell systematic reviews 20220425 2
<h4>Background</h4>There is a need for the development of comprehensive, global, evidence-based guidance for stakeholder engagement in guideline development. Stakeholders are any individual or group who is responsible for or affected by health- and healthcare-related decisions. This includes patients, the public, providers of health care and policymakers for example. As part of the guidance development process, Multi-Stakeholder Engagement (MuSE) Consortium set out to conduct four concurrent sys ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows: to identify, describe, and summarize existing guidance and methods for multistakeholder engagement throughout the health guideline development process.
| S-EPMC9096120 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundStakeholder engagement has become widely accepted as a necessary component of guideline development and implementation. While frameworks for developing guidelines express the need for those potentially affected by guideline recommendations to be involved in their development, there is a lack of consensus on how this should be done in practice. Further, there is a lack of guidance on how to equitably and meaningfully engage multiple stakeholders. We aim to develop guidance for the meaningful and equitable engagement of multiple stakeholders in guideline development and implementation.MethodsThis will be a multi-stage project. The first stage is to conduct a series of four systematic reviews. These will (1) describe existing guidance and methods for stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation, (2) characterize barriers and facilitators to stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation, (3) explore the impact of stakeholder engagement on guideline development and implementation, and (4) identify issues related to conflicts of interest when engaging multiple stakeholders in guideline development and implementation.DiscussionWe will collaborate with our multiple and diverse stakeholders to develop guidance for multi-stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation. We will use the results of the systematic reviews to develop a candidate list of draft guidance recommendations and will seek broad feedback on the draft guidance via an online survey of guideline developers and external stakeholders. An invited group of representatives from all stakeholder groups will discuss the results of the survey at a consensus meeting which will inform the development of the final guidance papers. Our overall goal is to improve the development of guidelines through meaningful and equitable multi-stakeholder engagement, and subsequently to improve health outcomes and reduce inequities in health.
| S-EPMC6995157 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess barriers and facilitators to de-implementation.DesignA qualitative evidence synthesis with a framework analysis.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, Cochrane Library and Rx for Change databases until September 2018 were searched.Eligibility criteriaWe 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 synthesisThe factors were classified on five levels: individual provider, individual patient, social context, organisational context, economic/political context.ResultsWe 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%).ConclusionsThis 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.
| S-EPMC7604848 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe long-term care setting poses unique challenges and opportunities for effective knowledge translation. The objectives of this review are to (1) synthesize barriers and facilitators to implementing evidence-based guidelines in long-term care, as defined as a home where residents require 24-h nursing care, and 50% of the population is over the age of 65 years; and (2) map barriers and facilitators to the Behaviour Change Wheel framework to inform theory-guided knowledge translation strategies.MethodsFollowing the guidance of the Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group Guidance Series and the ENTREQ reporting guidelines, we systematically reviewed the reported experiences of long-term care staff on implementing evidence-based guidelines into practice. MEDLINE Pubmed, EMBASE Ovid, and CINAHL were searched from the earliest date available until May 2021. Two independent reviewers selected primary studies for inclusion if they were conducted in long-term care and reported the perspective or experiences of long-term care staff with implementing an evidence-based practice guideline about health conditions. Appraisal of the included studies was conducted using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Checklist and confidence in the findings with the GRADE-CERQual approach.FindingsAfter screening 2680 abstracts, we retrieved 115 full-text articles; 33 of these articles met the inclusion criteria. Barriers included time constraints and inadequate staffing, cost and lack of resources, and lack of teamwork and organizational support. Facilitators included leadership and champions, well-designed strategies, protocols, and resources, and adequate services, resources, and time. The most frequent Behaviour Change Wheel components were physical and social opportunity and psychological capability. We concluded moderate or high confidence in all but one of our review findings.ConclusionsFuture knowledge translation strategies to implement guidelines in long-term care should target physical and social opportunity and psychological capability, and include interventions such as environmental restructuring, training, and education.
| S-EPMC8267230 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAlthough the number of Dutch guidelines is growing, their uptake and impact in clinical practice lag behind. Dutch guideline organizations, including guideline developers, governmental agencies, health insurers and other national organizations, play a crucial role in developing, authorizing and/or supporting the use of guidelines. They influence end users' awareness, accessibility, understanding, acceptability and applicability of guidelines. In this study, we explored the barriers and facilitators that representatives of guideline organizations perceive in nationwide guideline implementation.MethodsIn this qualitative study, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 35 representatives of 24 different guideline organizations. We employed framework analysis, using the updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), and thematic analysis to guide our data analysis and synthesis.ResultsWe found 45 different implementation barriers and 35 implementation facilitators. We identified seven overarching themes of interrelated barriers and facilitators that extended across the stakeholders involved and domains within the updated CFIR. These included 1) healthcare demand and resource availability, 2) implementation knowledge and expertise, 3) guideline characteristics: representation, evidence base and design, 4) partnerships and collaboration, 5) characteristics of guideline implementation planning, execution and evaluation strategies, 6) characteristics of healthcare professionals: need, capability, opportunity and motivation, and 7) legal and regulatory compliance.ConclusionsWe obtained valuable insights into the complex dynamics of barriers and facilitators perceived by guideline organizations in nationwide guideline implementation. Our findings help explain why healthcare professionals and healthcare facilities may (not), slowly or inconsistently adhere to guideline recommendations in practice. The identified barriers and facilitators provide guidance for policymakers to re-evaluate and improve nationwide quality and guideline implementation policies, to eventually improve clinical practice and health outcomes for patients.
| S-EPMC11771117 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The rate of screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) in the U.S. remains low (under 65%), meaning that thousands of people die of colorectal cancer unnecessarily. Colorectal cancer screening tests range from more invasive and very sensitive for polyps and cancer (colonoscopy) to less invasive and less sensitive (e.g., fecal immunochemical testing (FIT)). Screening rates go up when patients consider all these tests, not just colonoscopy. Informing patients about their options for CRC screening could produce higher quality decisions, improve the match between patient preferences and tests performed, and increase uptake of CRC screening. Decision aids (DAs) are a promising tool for accomplishing this goal. Also, precision CRC prevention - providing information about an individual’s specific risk for CRC - has great promise to increase uptake and improve decision making.
Unfortunately, the COVID-19 pandemic is causing severe challenges to providing CRC screening and other prevention services. Health systems are trying to adapt, but these efforts have only begun and are poorly understood. Moreover, patient perceptions of disease risk and risk from COVID-19 are unknown.
| 2361924 | ecrin-mdr-crc
Project description:BackgroundHealthcare organisations and teams perform improvement activities to facilitate high-quality healthcare. The use of an improvement coach who provides support and guidance to the healthcare team may facilitate improvement activities; however, no systematic review exists on the facilitators and barriers to implementing an improvement coach.AimsWe conducted a qualitative evidence synthesis to examine the facilitators and barriers to the implementation of improvement coaching.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE® , Embase and CINAHL. The final search was in March 2021. The screening eligibility criteria included the following: interdisciplinary team receiving the coaching, improvement coaching, designs with a qualitative component and primary purpose of evaluating practice facilitation in OECD countries. An ecologically-informed consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR) served as the framework for coding. Patterns of barriers and facilitators across domains were identified through matrix analysis. Risk of bias was assessed using Critical Appraisal Skills Program. PRISMA reporting guidelines served as a guide for reporting this review.ResultsNineteen studies with a qualitative component met the inclusion criteria. Four themes of barriers and facilitators crossed multiple CFIR domains: adaptability (e.g. making adjustments to the project; process, or approach); knowledge and skills (e.g. understanding of content and process for the project); engagement (e.g. willingness to be involved in the process) and resources (e.g. assets required to complete the improvement process).ConclusionImprovement coaching is a complex intervention that influences the context, healthcare team being coached and improvement activities. Improvement coaches should understand how to minimise barriers and promote facilitators that are unique to each improvement project across the domains. Limitations of the study are related to the nature of the intervention including potential publication bias given quality improvement focus; the variety of terms similar to improvement coaching or selection of framework.
| S-EPMC11309122 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Retention in HIV care is vital to the HIV care continuum. The current review aimed to synthesize qualitative research to identify facilitators and barriers to HIV retention in care interventions. A qualitative evidence meta-synthesis utilizing thematic analysis. Prospective review registration was made in PROSPERO and review procedures adhered to PRISMA guidelines. Nineteen databases were searched to identify qualitative research conducted with individuals living with HIV and their caregivers. Quality assessment was conducted using CASP and the certainty of the evidence was evaluated using CERQual. A total of 4419 citations were evaluated and 11 were included in the final meta-synthesis. Two studies were from high-income countries, 3 from middle-income countries, and 6 from low-income countries. A total of eight themes were identified as facilitators or barriers for retention in HIV care intervention: (1) Stigma and discrimination, (2) Fear of HIV status disclosure, (3) task shifting to lay health workers, (4) Human resource and institutional challenges, (5) Mobile Health (mHealth), (6) Family and friend support, (7) Intensive case management, and, (8) Relationships with caregivers. The current review suggests that task shifting interventions with lay health workers were feasible and acceptable. mHealth interventions and stigma reduction interventions appear to be promising interventions aimed at improving retention in HIV care. Future studies should focus on improving the evidence base for these interventions. Additional research is needed among women and adolescents who were under-represented in retention interventions.
| S-EPMC5332336 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundConventional clinical trials are essential for generating high-quality evidence by measuring the efficacy of interventions in rigorously controlled clinical environments. However, their execution can be expensive and time-consuming. In addition, clinical trials face several logistical challenges regarding the identification, recruitment, and retention of participants; consistent data collection during trials; and adequate patient follow-up. This might lead to inefficient resource utilization. In order to partially address the current problems with conventional clinical trials, there exists the need for innovations. One such innovation is the virtual clinical trial (VCT). VCTs allow for the collection and integration of diverse data from multiple information sources, such as electronic health records, clinical and demographic data, patient-reported outcomes, anthropometric and activity measurements, and data collected by digital biomarkers or (small) samples that participants can collect themselves. Although VCTs have the potential to provide substantial value to clinical research and patients because they can lower clinical trial costs, increase the volume of data collected from patients' daily environment, and reduce the burden of patient participation, so far VCT adoption is not commonplace.ObjectiveThis paper aims to better understand the barriers and facilitators to VCT adoption by determining the factors that influence individuals' considerations regarding VCTs from the perspective of various stakeholders.MethodsBased on online semistructured interviews, a qualitative study was conducted with pharmaceutical companies, food and health organizations, and an applied research organization in Europe. Data were thematically analyzed using Rogers' diffusion of innovation theory.ResultsA total of 16 individuals with interest and experience in VCTs were interviewed, including persons from pharmaceutical companies (n=6), food and health organizations (n=4), and a research organization (n=6). Key barriers included a potentially low degree of acceptance by regulatory authorities, technical issues (standardization, validation, and data storage), compliance and adherence, and lack of knowledge or comprehension regarding the opportunities VCTs have to offer. Involvement of regulators in development processes, stakeholder exposure to the results of pilot studies, and clear and simple instructions and assistance for patients were considered key facilitators.ConclusionsCollaboration among all stakeholders in VCT development is crucial to increase knowledge and awareness. Organizations should invest in accurate data collection technologies, and compliance of patients in VCTs needs to be ensured. Multicriteria decision analysis can help determine if a VCT is a preferred option by stakeholders. The findings of this study can be a good starting point to accelerate the development and widespread implementation of VCTs.
| S-EPMC8294122 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionWith the development of the medical system and the diversification of patient needs, nurse practitioners (NPs) play an increasingly important role in medical practice, assuming more responsibilities and powers, including the right to prescribe. However, in the process of exercising the right to prescribe, NPs may face various obstacles, and there are also some promoting factors. Therefore, this study aims to deeply explore the obstacles and promoting factors in the prescription process of NPs through a qualitative meta-analysis and comprehensive method, so as to provide a basis for improving the prescription practice of NPs, improving nursing quality and patient satisfaction.Methods and analysisThis study will adhere to the Joanna Briggs Institute framework and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols. A comprehensive literature search and analysis of studies on nurse are prescribed via PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library. Two independent reviewers will select articles, extract data and appraise study quality. Content analysis will be used to synthesise outcomes, and methodological quality and evidence quality will be assessed. The quality of the articles will be assessed using the 10-item Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval will not be required for this study, as it solely encompasses data derived from previously published research. The findings will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal. In addition, the results will be actively shared at major academic conferences focused on nursing research and healthcare policy to ensure that the study's outcomes reach key stakeholders, including healthcare practitioners, policymakers and researchers. This targeted dissemination strategy aims to promote the integration of the findings into practice and future research. This protocol is registered with the PROSPERO prospective database of systematic review.Prospero registration numberCRD42023398567.
| S-EPMC11647289 | biostudies-literature