Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30060744›Full record

SynthesisImplementation science : IS2018

Barriers and facilitators to implementing evidence-based interventions among third sector organisations: a systematic review.

Anders Malthe Bach-Mortensen, Brittany C L Lange, Paul Montgomery

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Implementation science : IS, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 107 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
107citing papers in PubMed, 10 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

107 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

47 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

3 authors.

Anders Malthe Bach-MortensenDepartment of Social Policy and Intervention, University of Oxford, Barnett House, 32 Wellington Square, Oxford, OX1 2ER, UK. anders.bach-mortensen@spi.ox.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-7804-7958
Brittany C L LangeDepartment of Social Policy and Intervention, University of Oxford, Barnett House, 32 Wellington Square, Oxford, OX1 2ER, UK.
Paul MontgomeryDepartment of Social Policy, Sociology and Criminology, University of Birmingham, B15 2TT, Birmingham, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe third sector is becoming a growing provider of public, social, and health services. However, there is little evidence on the effectiveness of third sector organisations (TSOs), and their capacity to implement evidence-based interventions (EBIs). Understanding implementation aspects of service delivery remains an important issue in clinical practice, but is poorly understood in the context of TSOs. This is problematic, since implementation issues are known to be critical for effective intervention outcomes.

objectivesTo identify and synthesise existing research on what barriers and facilitators influence the implementation process of TSOs delivering EBIs.

methodsThis review is reported according to PRISMA guidelines and was pre-registered in PROSPERO. Key databases were searched using relevant terms, experts in the field were contacted, and websites were reviewed. All identified studies were double-screened, and data were extracted independently by two authors. Included studies were synthesised using thematic analysis and were quality appraised.

resultsThirty-one studies were included, most of which were conducted in North America. The thematic synthesis identified resource limitations, in particular staff and finance, to be the most reported barrier to TSOs implementing EBIs. Organisational culture, including factors such as alignment between the mission of the TSO and EBI, and support/prioritisation of the implementation process were the most reported facilitators. These findings generalise across the included studies and are robust to study quality assessment.

conclusionsWhile it is often assumed that good outcomes follow when implementing interventions that have been developed and tested according to best practice, little attention has been paid to how EBIs are best transported, contextualised, and implemented by third sector providers. This systematic review found that TSOs faced considerable challenges in implementing EBIs, which were primarily a lack of support and expertise, and unclear/insufficient guidelines on how to adapt EBIs to different populations. To address these challenges, it is important to engage with central stakeholders, such as funders, researchers, policymakers, and practitioners, to discuss how these needs can be met.

trial registrationPROSPERO: CRD42017073090 .

Indexed as

Evidence-Based PracticeOrganizational CultureOrganizations, NonprofitHealth ServicesHealth Services ResearchHumansBarriersCBOCharitiesEBI, evidence-based practiceEBP, third-sector organisationEnablersEvidence-based interventionFacilitatorsImplementationNGONon-profitsObstructersTSO

Identifiers

PMID30060744
PMCPMC6065156

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.