Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28651530›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2017

Perspectives of health care professionals on the facilitators and barriers to the implementation of a stroke rehabilitation guidelines cluster randomized controlled trial.

Sarah E P Munce, Ian D Graham, Nancy M Salbach, Susan B Jaglal, Carol L Richards, Janice J Eng, Johanne Desrosiers, Marilyn MacKay-Lyons, Sharon Wood-Dauphinee, Nicol Korner-Bitensky and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors.

Sarah E P MunceToronto Rehabilitation Institute-University Health Network, 550 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, M5G 2A2, Canada. sarah.munce@uhn.ca.
Ian D GrahamCentre for Practice-Changing Research, The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 501 Smyth Road, Box 711, Ottawa, Ontario, K1H 8L6, Canada.
Nancy M SalbachDepartment of Physical Therapy, University of Toronto, 160-500 University Ave, Toronto, Ontario, M5G 1V7, Canada.
Susan B JaglalDepartment of Physical Therapy, University of Toronto, 160-500 University Ave, Toronto, Ontario, M5G 1V7, Canada.
Carol L RichardsDepartment of Rehabilitation, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval and Centre de Recherche en Réadaptation et Intégration Sociale (CIRRIS), Québec City, Quebec, Canada.
Janice J EngUniversity of British Columbia, 212 - 2177 Wesbrook Mall, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z3, Canada.
Johanne DesrosiersUniversité de Sherbrooke, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, 3001, 12e avenue nord, Bureau FM-2208, Sherbrooke, Québec, J1H 5N4, Canada.
Marilyn MacKay-LyonsOffice 405 Forrest Building, School of Physiotherapy, Dalhousie University, 5869 University Avenue, PO Box 15000, Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3H 4R2, Canada.
Sharon Wood-DauphineeMcGill University, School of Physical and Occupational Therapy, 3630 Promenade Sir William Osler, Montreal, Quebec, H3G 1Y5, Canada.
Nicol Korner-BitenskyMcGill University, School of Physical and Occupational Therapy, 3630 Promenade Sir William Osler, Montreal, Quebec, H3G 1Y5, Canada.
Nancy E MayoDivision of Clinical Epidemiology, Division of Geriatrics, McGill University Health Center, Royal Victoria Hospital Site, Ross Pavilion R4.29, 687 Pine Ave West, Montreal, Quebec, H3A 1A1, Canada.
Robert W TeasellParkwood Institute, 550 Wellington Road, London, Ontario, N6C 0A7, Canada.
Merrick ZwarensteinSchulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, Western University, Western Centre for Public Health and Family Medicine, 1151 Richmond St, London, Ontario, N6A 3K7, Canada.
Jennifer MokryToronto Rehabilitation Institute-University Health Network, 550 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, M5G 2A2, Canada.
Sandra BlackSunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, 2075 Bayview Avenue, Room A4 21, Toronto, Ontario, M4N 3M5, Canada.
Mark T BayleyNeuro Rehabilitation Program, Toronto Rehabilitation Institute-University Health Network, 550 University Avenue, room 3-131 (3-East) 3rd Floor University Wing, Toronto, ON, M5G 2A2, Canada.

Funding

CIHR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Stroke Canada Optimization of Rehabilitation by Evidence Implementation Trial (SCORE-IT) was a cluster randomized controlled trial that evaluated two knowledge translation (KT) interventions for the promotion of the uptake of best practice recommendations for interventions targeting upper and lower extremity function, postural control, and mobility. Twenty rehabilitation centers across Canada were randomly assigned to either the facilitated or passive KT intervention. The objective of the current study was to understand the factors influencing the implementation of the recommended treatments and KT interventions from the perspective of nurses, occupational therapists and physical therapists, and clinical managers following completion of the trial.

methodsA qualitative descriptive approach involving focus groups was used. Thematic analysis was used to understand the factors influencing the implementation of the recommended treatments and KT interventions. The Clinical Practice Guidelines Framework for Improvement guided the analysis.

resultsThirty-three participants were interviewed from 11 of the 20 study sites (6 sites from the facilitated KT arm and 5 sites from the passive KT arm). The following factors influencing the implementation of the recommended treatments and KT interventions emerged: facilitation, agreement with the intervention - practical, familiarity with the recommended treatments, and environmental factors, including time and resources. Each of these themes includes the sub-themes of facilitator and/or barrier. Improved team communication and interdisciplinary collaboration emerged as an unintended outcome of the trial across both arms in addition to a facilitator to the implementation of the treatment recommendations. Facilitation was identified as a facilitator to implementation of the KT interventions in the passive KT intervention arm despite the lack of formally instituted facilitators in this arm of the trial.

conclusionsThis is one of the first studies to examine the factors influencing the implementation of stroke recommendations and associated KT interventions within the context of a trial. Findings highlight the important role of self-selected facilitators to implementation efforts. Future research should seek to better understand the specific characteristics of facilitators that are associated with successful implementation and clinical outcomes, especially within the context of stroke rehabilitation.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelGuideline AdherencePhysical TherapistsPractice Guidelines as TopicStroke RehabilitationCanadaFocus GroupsHealth ResourcesHumansInterdisciplinary CommunicationInterviews as TopicPatient Care TeamQualitative ResearchRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRehabilitation CentersTranslational Research, BiomedicalBarriersClinical practice guidelinesEvidence-based recommendationsFacilitatorsImplementationQualitativeRehabilitationStroke

Identifiers

PMID28651530
PMCPMC5485614

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.