Factors Influencing the Translation of Evidence Into Clinical Practice for Hospital Allied Health Professionals in Terms of the Domains of Behaviour Change Theory: A Systematic Review.

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Evaluation & the Health Professions Pub Date : 2024-09-23 DOI:10.1177/01632787241285993
Jacqueline Batchelor, Cameron Hemmert, Isabelle Meulenbroeks, Crystal Tang, Reema Harrison, Rajna Ogrin, Andrew Baillie, Mitchell Sarkies
{"title":"Factors Influencing the Translation of Evidence Into Clinical Practice for Hospital Allied Health Professionals in Terms of the Domains of Behaviour Change Theory: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Jacqueline Batchelor, Cameron Hemmert, Isabelle Meulenbroeks, Crystal Tang, Reema Harrison, Rajna Ogrin, Andrew Baillie, Mitchell Sarkies","doi":"10.1177/01632787241285993","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This systematic review provides an overview of the unique challenges allied health professions face in the translation and implementation of evidence into practice, which remain relatively under reported and uninformed by a theoretical basis of behaviour change. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Scopus databases from 2010 to 2022 were searched for primary study designs resulting in 21 articles included in this review (PROSPERO: 2022 CRD42022314996). Allied health disciplines reported in the review were mainly from occupational therapy, physiotherapy, dietetics, and speech pathology. The most frequently reported implementation determinants across the Theoretical Domains Framework were identified as 'environmental context and resources', and 'knowledge'. The results also identified a greater influence of 'social influences' and 'beliefs about consequences' in implementation. Implementing evidence into clinical practice is a multifaceted, complex process, and the use of the Theoretical Domains Framework provided a systematic approach to understanding the drivers behind the target behaviours. However, there is a paucity of studies across the allied health professions that describe implementation strategies used and their impact. Many of the studies focused on implementation by the individual clinician rather than the role organizations can play in the translation of evidence into practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":12315,"journal":{"name":"Evaluation & the Health Professions","volume":" ","pages":"1632787241285993"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evaluation & the Health Professions","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01632787241285993","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This systematic review provides an overview of the unique challenges allied health professions face in the translation and implementation of evidence into practice, which remain relatively under reported and uninformed by a theoretical basis of behaviour change. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Scopus databases from 2010 to 2022 were searched for primary study designs resulting in 21 articles included in this review (PROSPERO: 2022 CRD42022314996). Allied health disciplines reported in the review were mainly from occupational therapy, physiotherapy, dietetics, and speech pathology. The most frequently reported implementation determinants across the Theoretical Domains Framework were identified as 'environmental context and resources', and 'knowledge'. The results also identified a greater influence of 'social influences' and 'beliefs about consequences' in implementation. Implementing evidence into clinical practice is a multifaceted, complex process, and the use of the Theoretical Domains Framework provided a systematic approach to understanding the drivers behind the target behaviours. However, there is a paucity of studies across the allied health professions that describe implementation strategies used and their impact. Many of the studies focused on implementation by the individual clinician rather than the role organizations can play in the translation of evidence into practice.

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
从行为改变理论的领域看影响医院专职医疗人员将证据转化为临床实践的因素:系统综述。
本系统综述概述了专职医疗人员在将证据转化为实践时所面临的独特挑战,这些挑战的报道相对较少,而且缺乏行为改变的理论基础。我们在 MEDLINE、EMBASE、CINAHL 和 Scopus 数据库中检索了 2010 年至 2022 年的主要研究设计,结果有 21 篇文章被纳入本综述(PROSPERO:2022 CRD42022314996)。综述中报道的专职医疗学科主要来自职业治疗、物理治疗、营养学和言语病理学。在理论领域框架中,最常报告的实施决定因素是 "环境背景和资源 "以及 "知识"。研究结果还发现,"社会影响 "和 "后果信念 "对实施的影响更大。将证据应用于临床实践是一个多方面的复杂过程,理论领域框架的使用为了解目标行为背后的驱动因素提供了一种系统方法。然而,关于专职医疗行业所使用的实施策略及其影响的研究却很少。许多研究的重点是临床医生个人的实施情况,而不是组织在将证据转化为实践中可以发挥的作用。
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
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
31
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Evaluation & the Health Professions is a peer-reviewed, quarterly journal that provides health-related professionals with state-of-the-art methodological, measurement, and statistical tools for conceptualizing the etiology of health promotion and problems, and developing, implementing, and evaluating health programs, teaching and training services, and products that pertain to a myriad of health dimensions. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Average time from submission to first decision: 31 days
期刊最新文献
Analyzing the Effects of a Repeated Reading Intervention on Reading Fluency With Generalized Linear Mixed Models. Evaluation of a Parenting Program for Mothers With a Borderline Personality Disorder: A Multiple Baseline Single-Case Experimental Design Study. Single-Case Study of the Feasibility of Parent Training and Change in Parenting in Comparison to Baseline, in Adolescents With a Major Depressive Disorder. Using Generalized Linear Mixed Models in the Analysis of Count and Rate Data in Single-case Eperimental Designs: A Step-by-step Tutorial. Validity and Reliability of the Turkish Version of the Low Back Activity Confidence Scale (LoBACS).
×
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