ArticleBMC health services research2016
Implementing research results in clinical practice- the experiences of healthcare professionals.
Article in BMC health services research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 86 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
86 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Staff perspectives on the implementation of interventions for people with congenital disabilities: a mixed-methods systematic review.Systematic reviews · 2026Pooled it
- Uptake of evidence-based practice and its predictors among nurses in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Health care provider trust in vaccination: a systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis.European journal of public health · 2022Pooled it
- Radiation dermatitis assessment tools used in breast cancer: A systematic review of measurement properties.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2021Pooled it
- Research utilisation in clinical practice: the experience of nurses and midwives working in public hospitals.Reproductive health · 2021Pooled it
- Factors shaping the implementation and use of Clinical Cancer Decision Tools by GPs in primary care: a qualitative framework synthesis.BMJ open · 2021Pooled it
- How is the minimal clinically important difference established in health-related quality of life instruments? Review of anchors and methods.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2020Pooled it
- The impact of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data from clinical trials: a systematic review and critical analysis.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2019Pooled it
- HIV testing within general practices in Europe: a mixed-methods systematic review.BMC public health · 2018Pooled it
- The effectiveness of generic emails versus a remote knowledge broker to integrate mood management into a smoking cessation programme in team-based primary care: a cluster randomised trial.Implementation science : IS · 2021Trial
- Article
- Bridging the Research to Practice Gap: Feasibility of Implementing Social Rhythm Therapy for Bipolar Disorder in Specialist Mental Health Services.Community mental health journal · 2026Article
- Article
- Clinical practice guidelines in fibromyalgia. Physiotherapists' adherence in Denmark: a cross-sectional web-based survey study.Rheumatology international · 2026Article
- Implementing clinical practice guidelines into action: a qualitative study of managing knowledge translation in primary care organisations.Health research policy and systems · 2025Article
- Evaluation of chiropractic students' perspectives on back pain management following one of three clinical evidence-based educational training interventions: a cluster-randomized trial.The Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association · 2025Article
- Managers' perceptions of organizational readiness for change within disability healthcare: a Swedish national study with an embedded mixed-methods approach.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Utilisation of a cocreation methodology to develop claims-based indicators for feedback on implementation of comparative effectiveness research results into practice.BMJ open quality · 2025Article
26 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn healthcare research, results diffuse only slowly into clinical practice, and there is a need to bridge the gap between research and practice. This study elucidates how healthcare professionals in a hospital setting experience working with the implementation of research results.
methodA descriptive design was chosen. During 2014, 12 interviews were carried out with healthcare professionals representing different roles in the implementation process, based on semi-structured interview guidelines. The analysis was guided by a directed content analysis approach.
resultsThe initial implementation was non-formalized. In the decision-making and management process, the pattern among nurses and doctors, respectively, was found to be different. While nurses' decisions tended to be problem-oriented and managed on a person-driven basis, doctors' decisions were consensus-oriented and managed by autonomy. All, however, experienced a knowledge-based execution of the research results, as the implementation process ended.
conclusionThe results illuminate the challenges involved in closing the evidence-practice gap, and may add to the growing body of knowledge on which basis actions can be taken to ensure the best care and treatment available actually reaches the patient.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.