Facilitators of and barriers to adopting a restrictive red blood cell transfusion practice: a population-based cross-sectional survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite recommendations for restrictive approaches to red blood cell transfusion in the intensive care unit (ICU), variation from best practices persists. The aim of this study was to explore potential facilitators of and barriers to practising a restrictive red blood cell transfusion strategy among intensive care physicians using the theoretical domains framework. METHODS: We conducted an online population-based cross-sectional survey of all intensive care physicians in 1 health care system (Alberta). Survey questions were based on 6 key theoretical domains of the theoretical domains framework: Knowledge, Social/professional roles and identity, Motivation and goals, Beliefs about consequences, Social influences and Beliefs about capabilities. The survey was administered between July 27 and Oct. 6, 2017. Descriptive statistics (demographic and Likert scale data) and conventional content analysis (open-ended responses) were conducted. RESULTS: Forty-two intensive care physicians completed the survey (estimated response rate 56%). The respondents identified knowledge of published evidence, use of guidelines, improved outcomes, physician autonomy, and perceived culture of acceptance and collegial support as facilitators of practising a restrictive transfusion strategy. Identified barriers included potential impact on and cost to other clinical goals, conflicting practices and beliefs of physicians in other clinical specialties, deficits in medical trainees' skills and knowledge, and attitudinal barriers related to denial. INTERPRETATION: Using the theoretical domains framework, we identified 9 key self-reported facilitators of and barriers to intensive care physicians' transfusion behaviour. Understanding these determinants will help inform development and implementation of interventions within ICUs to encourage optimal use of red blood cell transfusion practices for nonbleeding patients whose condition is stable.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".