ArticleCommunity mental health journal2010
Exploring barriers to the implementation of evidence-based practice in psychiatry to inform health policy: a focus group based study.
Article in Community mental health journal, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The effectiveness of integrated treatment in patients with substance use disorders co-occurring with anxiety and/or depression--a group randomized trial.BMC psychiatry · 2014Trial
- Improving Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Prevention from the Bottom-up: a Pilot of Getting To Outcomes in the US Military.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2023Article
- 'Personalised evidence' for personalised healthcare: integration of a clinical librarian into mental health services - a feasibility study.Psychiatric bulletin (2014) · 2014Article
- Coverage of mental health and substance misuse topics in the Cochrane review system.Epidemiology and psychiatric sciences · 2013Review
- Evidence based practice in clinical physiotherapy education: a qualitative interpretive description.BMC medical education · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aims to explore the obstacles to Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) experienced by Belgian Dutch-speaking psychiatrists. We used an inductive, qualitative research strategy. Thirty-nine psychiatrists participated in five focus groups organised between September 2004 and September 2006. Data-analysis was guided by a 'grounded theory approach'. Three major themes emerged from the data: (1) Characteristics of evidence, including the lack of (use of) evidence and the applicability of evidence; (2) Characteristics of other partners in mental health care, including government, patients and drug companies and (3) Discipline-related barriers, including the complexity of diagnoses, the importance of the therapeutic relationship and personal experience, and the different schools of thoughts. A problem tree was developed, linking all obstacles. Although context-specific, the problem tree can assist policy makers working in health care systems with similar characteristics in formulating objectives and developing strategies that facilitate EBP in the field of psychiatric care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
19888653What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.