辅助医学证据实施的推动因素和障碍:一项系统综述

IF 2.8 4区 医学 Q2 INTEGRATIVE & COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE Integrative Medicine Research Pub Date : 2022-12-01 DOI:10.1016/j.imr.2022.100899
Matthew J. Leach , Yasamin Veziari
{"title":"辅助医学证据实施的推动因素和障碍:一项系统综述","authors":"Matthew J. Leach ,&nbsp;Yasamin Veziari","doi":"10.1016/j.imr.2022.100899","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Despite the push for complementary medicine (CM) practitioners to engage in evidence implementation, and arguments in support of evidence-based practice (EBP), uptake of EBP amongst most CM professions remains low. This review aimed to synthesise the evidence examining the barriers and enablers to evidence implementation in CM.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Any primary study examining enablers and barriers to evidence implementation in CM were eligible for inclusion. Eight databases and search engines were searched for eligible studies. Reference lists of included studies were screened, and authors of included studies were contacted to identify current or unpublished studies that met the inclusion criteria.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Thirty-nine published and unpublished studies were included in this review. The seven published qualitative studies and 25 published quantitative studies were rated as moderate to high quality. Fifty-two distinct barriers and 62 discrete enablers were identified. Reported barriers were predominantly structural (e.g. limited availability of time and clinical evidence) and cognitive (e.g. skills deficits), with relatively fewer studies reporting cultural (e.g. lack of industry support) or attitudinal barriers (e.g. lack of interest in, or relevance to CM). Enablers of evidence implementation largely focussed on improving access to bibliographic databases and evidence reviews, supporting skills acquisition, and cultivating leadership and interprofessional/interagency collaboration.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The findings of this review highlight the diverse barriers and enablers to evidence implementation in CM that span multiple dimensions. The interplay between these various factors highlights the complexity of evidence implementation, and the need for a targeted multistakeholder, multidimensional solution to optimise evidence-based practice in CM.</p></div><div><h3>Study registration</h3><p>The protocol of this review was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42022308527).</p></div>","PeriodicalId":13644,"journal":{"name":"Integrative Medicine Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/18/4e/main.PMC9661640.pdf","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Enablers and barriers to evidence implementation in complementary medicine: A systematic review\",\"authors\":\"Matthew J. Leach ,&nbsp;Yasamin Veziari\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.imr.2022.100899\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Despite the push for complementary medicine (CM) practitioners to engage in evidence implementation, and arguments in support of evidence-based practice (EBP), uptake of EBP amongst most CM professions remains low. This review aimed to synthesise the evidence examining the barriers and enablers to evidence implementation in CM.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Any primary study examining enablers and barriers to evidence implementation in CM were eligible for inclusion. Eight databases and search engines were searched for eligible studies. Reference lists of included studies were screened, and authors of included studies were contacted to identify current or unpublished studies that met the inclusion criteria.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Thirty-nine published and unpublished studies were included in this review. The seven published qualitative studies and 25 published quantitative studies were rated as moderate to high quality. Fifty-two distinct barriers and 62 discrete enablers were identified. Reported barriers were predominantly structural (e.g. limited availability of time and clinical evidence) and cognitive (e.g. skills deficits), with relatively fewer studies reporting cultural (e.g. lack of industry support) or attitudinal barriers (e.g. lack of interest in, or relevance to CM). Enablers of evidence implementation largely focussed on improving access to bibliographic databases and evidence reviews, supporting skills acquisition, and cultivating leadership and interprofessional/interagency collaboration.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The findings of this review highlight the diverse barriers and enablers to evidence implementation in CM that span multiple dimensions. The interplay between these various factors highlights the complexity of evidence implementation, and the need for a targeted multistakeholder, multidimensional solution to optimise evidence-based practice in CM.</p></div><div><h3>Study registration</h3><p>The protocol of this review was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42022308527).</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13644,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Integrative Medicine Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/18/4e/main.PMC9661640.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Integrative Medicine Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221342202200066X\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INTEGRATIVE & COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Integrative Medicine Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221342202200066X","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTEGRATIVE & COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

尽管补充医学(CM)从业者参与证据实施的推动,以及支持循证实践(EBP)的争论,但大多数CM专业对EBP的吸收仍然很低。本综述旨在综合证据,检查CM中证据实施的障碍和促成因素。方法任何检查CM证据实施的促成因素和障碍的初步研究都符合纳入条件。在8个数据库和搜索引擎中搜索了符合条件的研究。筛选纳入研究的参考文献,并联系纳入研究的作者,以确定符合纳入标准的当前或未发表的研究。结果本综述纳入39项已发表和未发表的研究。7项已发表的定性研究和25项已发表的定量研究被评为中等至高质量。确定了52个不同的障碍和62个离散的使能因素。报告的障碍主要是结构性障碍(如时间和临床证据有限)和认知障碍(如技能缺陷),报告文化障碍(如缺乏行业支持)或态度障碍(如缺乏兴趣或与CM相关)的研究相对较少。证据实施的推动因素主要侧重于改善书目数据库的获取和证据审查,支持技能获取,培养领导力和专业间/机构间合作。本综述的发现突出了CM中证据实施的各种障碍和推动因素,这些障碍和推动因素跨越多个维度。这些不同因素之间的相互作用突出了证据实施的复杂性,以及需要有针对性的多利益相关者、多维解决方案来优化CM中的循证实践。研究注册本综述的方案在PROSPERO注册(CRD42022308527)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Enablers and barriers to evidence implementation in complementary medicine: A systematic review

Background

Despite the push for complementary medicine (CM) practitioners to engage in evidence implementation, and arguments in support of evidence-based practice (EBP), uptake of EBP amongst most CM professions remains low. This review aimed to synthesise the evidence examining the barriers and enablers to evidence implementation in CM.

Methods

Any primary study examining enablers and barriers to evidence implementation in CM were eligible for inclusion. Eight databases and search engines were searched for eligible studies. Reference lists of included studies were screened, and authors of included studies were contacted to identify current or unpublished studies that met the inclusion criteria.

Results

Thirty-nine published and unpublished studies were included in this review. The seven published qualitative studies and 25 published quantitative studies were rated as moderate to high quality. Fifty-two distinct barriers and 62 discrete enablers were identified. Reported barriers were predominantly structural (e.g. limited availability of time and clinical evidence) and cognitive (e.g. skills deficits), with relatively fewer studies reporting cultural (e.g. lack of industry support) or attitudinal barriers (e.g. lack of interest in, or relevance to CM). Enablers of evidence implementation largely focussed on improving access to bibliographic databases and evidence reviews, supporting skills acquisition, and cultivating leadership and interprofessional/interagency collaboration.

Conclusions

The findings of this review highlight the diverse barriers and enablers to evidence implementation in CM that span multiple dimensions. The interplay between these various factors highlights the complexity of evidence implementation, and the need for a targeted multistakeholder, multidimensional solution to optimise evidence-based practice in CM.

Study registration

The protocol of this review was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42022308527).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Integrative Medicine Research
Integrative Medicine Research Medicine-Complementary and Alternative Medicine
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
2.90%
发文量
65
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Integrative Medicine Research (IMR) is a quarterly, peer-reviewed journal focused on scientific research for integrative medicine including traditional medicine (emphasis on acupuncture and herbal medicine), complementary and alternative medicine, and systems medicine. The journal includes papers on basic research, clinical research, methodology, theory, computational analysis and modelling, topical reviews, medical history, education and policy based on physiology, pathology, diagnosis and the systems approach in the field of integrative medicine.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Contents Protective effect of Korean red ginseng water extract on levothyroxine-induced hyperthyroidism and propylthiouracil-induced hypothyroidism in rats An evidence map on traditional medicine across health outcomes Effectiveness and safety of Liriope Tuber (Liriopis seu Ophiopogonis Tuber, Maidong) included traditional herbal medicine for patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and network analysis
×
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