MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2326776861 · doi:10.1097/xeb.0000000000000008

Examining the use of facilitation within guideline dissemination and implementation studies in nursing

2014· review· en· W2326776861 sur OpenAlexafffund
Elizabeth J. Dogherty, Margaret B. Harrison, Ian D. Graham, Lisa Keeping‐Burke

Notice bibliographique

RevueInternational Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare · 2014
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueHealth Policy Implementation Science
Établissements canadiensUniversity of New BrunswickUniversity of AlbertaQueen's UniversityOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Organismes subventionnairesCanadian Institutes of Health Research
Mots-clésFacilitationGuidelineNursingPsychologyMedicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Facilitation is a mechanism for implementing practice guidelines in nursing. Facilitation aims to prepare clinicians and organisations for implementation and to provide support and help in problem-solving as implementation progresses. However, any evidence supporting its effectiveness is limited due to a lack of empirical testing. AIM: : To examine the presence and role of facilitation in studies included in an existing systematic review of guideline dissemination and implementation in nursing. METHODS: Using a descriptive, exploratory approach, we examined 28 studies for elements of facilitation that were included in a review of the effectiveness of interventions to increase the use of practice guidelines in nursing. We conducted a content analysis of a subset of studies that included facilitation activity to gather descriptions of study interventions, characteristics and skills required, use of theory, and effectiveness. Extracted data were analysed using a previously developed taxonomy containing 53 activities related to facilitation. RESULTS: Ten of the 28 studies exhibited evidence of facilitation process and activity. Only two of the 10 studies explicitly referred to 'facilitators,' with just one indicating that facilitators were a part of the implementation intervention being tested. We identified facilitation processes in the eight remaining studies even though the authors did not report it as such. All studies used facilitation activities in combination with other interventions, the most common being educational meetings or distribution of educational materials. We found evidence related to facilitation for 37 of the 53 facilitation activities (70%) in the taxonomy in at least one study or across studies. An additional three novel facilitation-related activities were identified. Most studies exhibited evidence of external facilitation activity whereby researchers outside of the setting assisted nurses to implement guidelines. Theory informed the development or selection of implementation interventions in 60% (n = 6) of the studies. Drawing conclusions regarding effectiveness of interventions involving facilitation was difficult due to the small number of studies that were included. Furthermore, the included studies varied in the detail provided about the intervention or combination of interventions tested and how interventions were delivered. CONCLUSIONS: Using an existing systematic review for the purpose of gaining insight into additional research questions was valuable. Although facilitation process and activities are used in interventions to enhance guideline uptake in nursing, these were not conceptualized or referred to by researchers as 'facilitation.' As such, facilitation may be a broader intervention that includes organizing and delivering other interventions. Further research is required to evaluate the relationship between facilitation and other guideline implementation interventions in nursing. The facilitation uncovered within included studies was located primarily in the context of research as it was the researchers who performed most of the facilitation activities. Future inquiries must explore non-researcher-initiated and delivered facilitation intervention activities by following local groups naturally within clinical contexts.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,012
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,017
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Autre devis · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,961
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,992

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0120,017
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,929
Tête enseignante GPT0,779
Écart entre enseignants0,151 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeAutre devis
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations47
Publié2014
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueInternational Journal of Evidence-Based HealthcareMême sujetHealth Policy Implementation ScienceTravaux en français237 207