Multilevel barriers to guideline implementation: a nationwide multi-professional cross-sectional study within child and adolescent psychiatry

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q1 PEDIATRICS Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health Pub Date : 2024-09-12 DOI:10.1186/s13034-024-00803-2
Anna Helena Elisabeth Santesson, Robert Holmberg, Martin Bäckström, Peik Gustafsson, Sean Perrin, Håkan Jarbin
{"title":"Multilevel barriers to guideline implementation: a nationwide multi-professional cross-sectional study within child and adolescent psychiatry","authors":"Anna Helena Elisabeth Santesson, Robert Holmberg, Martin Bäckström, Peik Gustafsson, Sean Perrin, Håkan Jarbin","doi":"10.1186/s13034-024-00803-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Despite efforts to promote guideline use, guideline adoption is often suboptimal due to failure to identify and address relevant barriers. Barriers vary not only between guidelines but also between settings, intended users, and targeted patients. Multi-professional guidelines are often used in child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS), making the implementation process more difficult. Despite this, there is a lack of knowledge about which barriers to consider or if barriers vary by profession. The aim of this study was to address these gaps by examining barriers to adopting a multi-professional depression guideline in the context of a nationwide implementation study. 440 CAMHS clinicians across Sweden (52%) completed the Barriers and Facilitators Assessment Instrument (BFAI) ahead of an implementation endeavour. BFAI is a widely used and validated measure of guideline implementation on four scales: Innovation, Provider, Context, and Patient. Barriers were calculated at scale and at item levels. ANOVA and chi-square tests were used to analyse differences by profession and effect sizes were calculated. Overall, clinicians were optimistic about guideline uptake, particularly about guideline characteristics and their own adoption ability. Barriers were related to the patient and the context domains, as well as to individual clinician knowledge and training. Perceptions differed across professions; psychiatrists were most, and counsellors were least positive about guideline embeddedness. This large-scale quantitative study suggests that CAMHS clinicians have an overall favourable attitude towards guideline adoption but highlights the need for adaptations to certain patient groups. Strategies to improve guideline use should primarily address these patient issues while securing proper support to the implementation. Implementation efforts, particularly those targeting staff knowledge, training, and involvement, may benefit from being tailored to different professional needs. These findings may inform implementation projects in CAMHS and future research.","PeriodicalId":9934,"journal":{"name":"Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health","volume":"99 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13034-024-00803-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Despite efforts to promote guideline use, guideline adoption is often suboptimal due to failure to identify and address relevant barriers. Barriers vary not only between guidelines but also between settings, intended users, and targeted patients. Multi-professional guidelines are often used in child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS), making the implementation process more difficult. Despite this, there is a lack of knowledge about which barriers to consider or if barriers vary by profession. The aim of this study was to address these gaps by examining barriers to adopting a multi-professional depression guideline in the context of a nationwide implementation study. 440 CAMHS clinicians across Sweden (52%) completed the Barriers and Facilitators Assessment Instrument (BFAI) ahead of an implementation endeavour. BFAI is a widely used and validated measure of guideline implementation on four scales: Innovation, Provider, Context, and Patient. Barriers were calculated at scale and at item levels. ANOVA and chi-square tests were used to analyse differences by profession and effect sizes were calculated. Overall, clinicians were optimistic about guideline uptake, particularly about guideline characteristics and their own adoption ability. Barriers were related to the patient and the context domains, as well as to individual clinician knowledge and training. Perceptions differed across professions; psychiatrists were most, and counsellors were least positive about guideline embeddedness. This large-scale quantitative study suggests that CAMHS clinicians have an overall favourable attitude towards guideline adoption but highlights the need for adaptations to certain patient groups. Strategies to improve guideline use should primarily address these patient issues while securing proper support to the implementation. Implementation efforts, particularly those targeting staff knowledge, training, and involvement, may benefit from being tailored to different professional needs. These findings may inform implementation projects in CAMHS and future research.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
指南实施的多层面障碍:儿童与青少年精神病学内的一项全国性多专业横断面研究
尽管人们努力促进指南的使用,但由于未能识别和解决相关障碍,指南的采用情况往往不尽如人意。障碍不仅因指南而异,还因环境、目标用户和目标患者而异。儿童和青少年心理健康服务(CAMHS)通常使用多专业指南,这使得实施过程更加困难。尽管如此,人们对需要考虑哪些障碍或不同专业是否存在不同障碍仍缺乏了解。本研究旨在通过一项全国范围内的实施研究,考察采用多专业抑郁指南的障碍,从而弥补这些不足。瑞典全国共有 440 名儿童保健服务临床医生(52%)在实施前完成了障碍和促进因素评估工具 (BFAI)。BFAI 是一种广泛使用且经过验证的指南实施测量方法,分为四个量表:创新、提供者、环境和患者。障碍按量表和项目水平进行计算。方差分析和卡方检验用于分析不同专业的差异,并计算出效应大小。总体而言,临床医生对指南的采用持乐观态度,尤其是对指南的特点和自身的采用能力。障碍与患者和环境领域以及临床医生的个人知识和培训有关。不同职业对指南嵌入性的看法也不尽相同;精神科医生对指南嵌入性的看法最积极,而心理咨询师对指南嵌入性的看法最不积极。这项大规模的定量研究表明,CAMHS 临床医生总体上对指南的采用持积极态度,但也强调了对某些患者群体进行调整的必要性。改善指南使用情况的策略应主要解决这些患者问题,同时确保对指南实施的适当支持。实施工作,尤其是针对员工知识、培训和参与的实施工作,可能会因应不同的专业需求而受益。这些发现可为儿童心理、情感和健康服务(CAMHS)的实施项目和未来研究提供参考。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health
Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health PEDIATRICSPSYCHIATRY-PSYCHIATRY
CiteScore
7.00
自引率
3.60%
发文量
84
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, the official journal of the International Association for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Allied Professions, is an open access, online journal that provides an international platform for rapid and comprehensive scientific communication on child and adolescent mental health across different cultural backgrounds. CAPMH serves as a scientifically rigorous and broadly open forum for both interdisciplinary and cross-cultural exchange of research information, involving psychiatrists, paediatricians, psychologists, neuroscientists, and allied disciplines. The journal focusses on improving the knowledge base for the diagnosis, prognosis and treatment of mental health conditions in children and adolescents, and aims to integrate basic science, clinical research and the practical implementation of research findings. In addition, aspects which are still underrepresented in the traditional journals such as neurobiology and neuropsychology of psychiatric disorders in childhood and adolescence are considered.
期刊最新文献
Correction: Forensic child & adolescent psychiatry and psychology in Europe. Network analysis of influential risk factors in adolescent suicide attempters. Latent class analysis of actigraphy within the depression early warning (DEW) longitudinal clinical youth cohort. Prevalence of depressive symptoms among children and adolescents in china: a systematic review and meta-analysis. How does emotional insecurity affect non-suicidal self-injury among Chinese early adolescents: a longitudinal study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1