Staff-reported barriers and facilitators to the implementation of healthcare interventions within regional and rural areas: a rapid review.

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES BMC Health Services Research Pub Date : 2025-03-04 DOI:10.1186/s12913-025-12480-8
Anna Chapman, Alison Buccheri, Devdini Mohotti, Anna Wong Shee, Catherine E Huggins, Laura Alston, Alison M Hutchinson, Sze Lin Yoong, Hannah Beks, Kevin Mc Namara, Anna Peeters, Anna Ugalde
{"title":"Staff-reported barriers and facilitators to the implementation of healthcare interventions within regional and rural areas: a rapid review.","authors":"Anna Chapman, Alison Buccheri, Devdini Mohotti, Anna Wong Shee, Catherine E Huggins, Laura Alston, Alison M Hutchinson, Sze Lin Yoong, Hannah Beks, Kevin Mc Namara, Anna Peeters, Anna Ugalde","doi":"10.1186/s12913-025-12480-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Individuals in rural areas consistently demonstrate higher mortality and morbidity rates, and poorer access to healthcare, compared to their metropolitan counterparts. Optimizing the implementation of evidence-based interventions can reduce these inequities. Existing literature outlines numerous barriers and facilitators to the implementation of healthcare interventions, but these are generally not specific to rural areas. This rapid review aims to synthesize barriers and facilitators to the implementation of healthcare interventions in regional and rural healthcare services as reported by healthcare staff, including clinicians, managers, and administrators.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search for peer-reviewed publications was conducted using CINAHL, PsycINFO, Medline, and Embase databases (1/1/2000-29/08/2023). Eligible publications were primary research articles published in English, assessing staff-reported barriers and facilitators to implementing healthcare interventions within regional and rural areas of high-income countries. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods designs were included. Eligible healthcare settings encompassed acute, sub-acute, primary care, community health, and aged care. Barrier and facilitator data were coded and grouped into sub-themes and broader themes, with results presented narratively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-nine publications met the inclusion criteria. Most studies were conducted in Australia or the USA (both n = 18, 46%), within primary care (n = 13, 33%) or hospital settings (n = 12, 31%) in rural (n = 22, 56%) or regional (n = 9, 23%) locations. Implementation barriers and facilitators were grouped into four overarching themes: intervention-level (intervention feasibility and fit; complexity; privacy and confidentiality); staff-level (staff attitudes and beliefs; knowledge, skills, and confidence; staff roles and professional identity), patient-level (patient characteristics; attitudes), and system-level (leadership support; environmental resources and context; geographic vastness; networks and communication).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These findings provide essential guidance for policymakers, healthcare leaders, and researchers in planning and designing future implementation efforts in regional and rural healthcare settings. By considering factors across intervention, staff, patient, and system levels, stakeholders can address challenges and leverage local strengths to enhance implementation success and reduce health disparities.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023470736. Registered 19/10/2023.</p>","PeriodicalId":9012,"journal":{"name":"BMC Health Services Research","volume":"25 1","pages":"331"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11877690/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Health Services Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-025-12480-8","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

Background: Individuals in rural areas consistently demonstrate higher mortality and morbidity rates, and poorer access to healthcare, compared to their metropolitan counterparts. Optimizing the implementation of evidence-based interventions can reduce these inequities. Existing literature outlines numerous barriers and facilitators to the implementation of healthcare interventions, but these are generally not specific to rural areas. This rapid review aims to synthesize barriers and facilitators to the implementation of healthcare interventions in regional and rural healthcare services as reported by healthcare staff, including clinicians, managers, and administrators.

Methods: A systematic search for peer-reviewed publications was conducted using CINAHL, PsycINFO, Medline, and Embase databases (1/1/2000-29/08/2023). Eligible publications were primary research articles published in English, assessing staff-reported barriers and facilitators to implementing healthcare interventions within regional and rural areas of high-income countries. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods designs were included. Eligible healthcare settings encompassed acute, sub-acute, primary care, community health, and aged care. Barrier and facilitator data were coded and grouped into sub-themes and broader themes, with results presented narratively.

Results: Thirty-nine publications met the inclusion criteria. Most studies were conducted in Australia or the USA (both n = 18, 46%), within primary care (n = 13, 33%) or hospital settings (n = 12, 31%) in rural (n = 22, 56%) or regional (n = 9, 23%) locations. Implementation barriers and facilitators were grouped into four overarching themes: intervention-level (intervention feasibility and fit; complexity; privacy and confidentiality); staff-level (staff attitudes and beliefs; knowledge, skills, and confidence; staff roles and professional identity), patient-level (patient characteristics; attitudes), and system-level (leadership support; environmental resources and context; geographic vastness; networks and communication).

Conclusions: These findings provide essential guidance for policymakers, healthcare leaders, and researchers in planning and designing future implementation efforts in regional and rural healthcare settings. By considering factors across intervention, staff, patient, and system levels, stakeholders can address challenges and leverage local strengths to enhance implementation success and reduce health disparities.

Trial registration: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023470736. Registered 19/10/2023.

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
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Health Services Research
BMC Health Services Research 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
7.10%
发文量
1372
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: BMC Health Services Research is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of health services research, including delivery of care, management of health services, assessment of healthcare needs, measurement of outcomes, allocation of healthcare resources, evaluation of different health markets and health services organizations, international comparative analysis of health systems, health economics and the impact of health policies and regulations.
期刊最新文献
Evaluation of a digital reporting and supporting tool in breast cancer prevention trials (KarmApp). Communication and relationships: how patients perceive informational and interactional organizational justice can improve patient-centered care, a study with samples from Spain and the U.S. Effect of virtual care in type 2 diabetes management - a systematic umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analysis. Factors associated with patient-physician relationships: perspectives of medical personnel in Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, China. Hesitancy towards COVID-19 booster vaccine among healthcare workers in Bangladesh.
×
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