MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2718117413 · doi:10.1186/s12913-017-2389-7

Perspectives of health care professionals on the facilitators and barriers to the implementation of a stroke rehabilitation guidelines cluster randomized controlled trial

2017· article· en· W2718117413 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Sarah Munce, Ian D. Graham, Nancy M. Salbach, Susan Jaglal, Carol L. Richards, Janice J. Eng, Johanne Desrosiers, Marilyn MacKay-Lyons, Sharon Wood-Dauphinée, Nicol Korner‐Bitensky, Nancy E. Mayo, Robert Teasell, Merrick Zwarenstein, Jennifer Mokry, Sandra Black, Mark Bayley

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Health Services Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science CentreRoyal Victoria HospitalMcGill UniversityWestern UniversityUniversity of TorontoUniversité de SherbrookeUniversity of British ColumbiaRoyal Victoria Regional Health CentreUniversité LavalParkwood InstituteCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in RehabilitationDalhousie UniversityHealth Sciences CentreOttawa HospitalUniversity Health NetworkToronto Rehabilitation Institute
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchToronto Rehabilitation InstituteNetworks of Centres of Excellence of CanadaGovernment of OntarioCanadian Stroke NetworkSociety for Sedimentary GeologyHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsFacilitatorPsychological interventionMedicineNursing researchThematic analysisRandomized controlled trialNursingRehabilitationHealth administrationKnowledge translationCluster randomised controlled trialImplementation researchPhysical therapyQualitative researchIntervention (counseling)Focus groupFamily medicinePublic healthPsychologyKnowledge managementSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The Stroke Canada Optimization of Rehabilitation by Evidence Implementation Trial (SCORE-IT) was a cluster randomized controlled trial that evaluated two knowledge translation (KT) interventions for the promotion of the uptake of best practice recommendations for interventions targeting upper and lower extremity function, postural control, and mobility. Twenty rehabilitation centers across Canada were randomly assigned to either the facilitated or passive KT intervention. The objective of the current study was to understand the factors influencing the implementation of the recommended treatments and KT interventions from the perspective of nurses, occupational therapists and physical therapists, and clinical managers following completion of the trial. METHODS: A qualitative descriptive approach involving focus groups was used. Thematic analysis was used to understand the factors influencing the implementation of the recommended treatments and KT interventions. The Clinical Practice Guidelines Framework for Improvement guided the analysis. RESULTS: Thirty-three participants were interviewed from 11 of the 20 study sites (6 sites from the facilitated KT arm and 5 sites from the passive KT arm). The following factors influencing the implementation of the recommended treatments and KT interventions emerged: facilitation, agreement with the intervention - practical, familiarity with the recommended treatments, and environmental factors, including time and resources. Each of these themes includes the sub-themes of facilitator and/or barrier. Improved team communication and interdisciplinary collaboration emerged as an unintended outcome of the trial across both arms in addition to a facilitator to the implementation of the treatment recommendations. Facilitation was identified as a facilitator to implementation of the KT interventions in the passive KT intervention arm despite the lack of formally instituted facilitators in this arm of the trial. CONCLUSIONS: This is one of the first studies to examine the factors influencing the implementation of stroke recommendations and associated KT interventions within the context of a trial. Findings highlight the important role of self-selected facilitators to implementation efforts. Future research should seek to better understand the specific characteristics of facilitators that are associated with successful implementation and clinical outcomes, especially within the context of stroke rehabilitation.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.356
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.410
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.356
Threshold uncertainty score0.794

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3560.410
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.320
GPT teacher head0.688
Teacher spread0.368 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations88
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Health Services ResearchSame topicHealth Policy Implementation ScienceFrench-language works237,207