Exploring health professionals’ perceptions of acceptability, facilitators, and barriers to using a conceptual framework for community rehabilitation in small, medium urban and rural settings in Manitoba.
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: In Canada, individuals are living longer with chronic health conditions. Estimates suggest one-third of individuals need rehabilitation at some point during their illness or injury. Community Rehabilitation (CR) services can support these individuals to continue living in their communities, but existing service delivery is disjointed and disorganized. To address this gap. the Conceptual Framework for Adult Community Rehabilitation (CFACR), was created with input from Manitoba stakeholders in a large urban setting, to inform CR policy design, service, care planning, and research. However, Manitoba includes other settings with distinct features. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to better understand what is needed to implement the CFACR in small, medium urban, and rural contexts in Manitoba by exploring 1) health professionals’ perceived acceptability of the CFACR, and 2) barriers and facilitators to the use of the CFACR in their setting. Methods: In this qualitative descriptive study, I interviewed health professionals in relevant settings in Manitoba. I used directed content analysis guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, which can identify determinants of implementation and inform implementation planning. Results: Six health professionals from two health regions participated. All participants perceived the CFACR as acceptable, included relevant constructs and aligned with practice goals, but emphasized the need for flexibility in the constructs to be responsive to practice needs. Key facilitators identified to support using the framework in these settings included compatibility with organizational and professional service goals and suitability to address patient needs. Identified barriers related to lack of resources, current care model, health system transformation, client flow, communication, client capacity, and logistics and workplace safety issues. Discussion: Participants positively perceived the CFACR, and compatible with service delivery aims but the identified barriers indicate that implementation needs support from external actors (i.e., government), and allocation of resources to community services. Research is needed to determine if barriers are specific to certain service settings (e.g., rural). Conclusion: The CFACR is acceptable in small, medium urban, and rural settings in Manitoba, fits with the goals of service delivery and practice, but barriers may challenge the feasibility of implementing it.
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.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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