Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30841872›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2019

Implementing an initiative promote evidence-informed practice: part 2-healthcare professionals' perspectives of the evidence rounds programme.

Aislinn Conway, Maura Dowling, Declan Devane

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Change Management and Innovation in Graduate Medical Education.Journal of graduate medical education · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

3 authors.

Aislinn ConwayHealth Research Board Trials Methodology Research Network, School of Nursing and Midwifery, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland. aislinnconway@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7566-3138
Maura DowlingSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7832-6276
Declan DevaneHealth Research Board Trials Methodology Research Network, School of Nursing and Midwifery, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9393-7075

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe translation of research into clinical practice is a key component of evidence-informed decision making. We implemented a multi-component dissemination and implementation strategy for healthcare professionals (HCPs) called Evidence Rounds. We report the findings of focus groups and interviews with HCPs to explore their perceptions of Evidence Rounds and help inform the implementation of future similar initiatives. This is the second paper in a two-part series.

methodsWe employed total population, purposive sampling by targeting all of the health care professionals who attended or presented at group sessions exploring the evidence on clinical questions or topics chosen and presented by the HCPs. We conducted and audio-recorded in-person focus groups and one-to-one interviews, which were then transcribed verbatim. Two authors independently coded transcripts. NVivo software was used to collate the primary data and codes. We analysed data guided by the five steps involved in framework analysis; 1) familiarization 2) identifying a thematic framework 3) indexing 4) charting 5) mapping and interpretation.

resultsThirteen HCPs participated, of which 6 were medical doctors an d 7 were nursing or midwifery staff. We identified the following key domains; organisational readiness for change, barriers and facilitators to attendance, barriers and facilitators to presenting, communication and dissemination of information, and sustainability. During focus groups and interviews HCPs reported that Evidence Rounds had a positive impact on their continuing education and clinical practice. They also provided insights into how future initiatives could be optimised to support and enable them to narrow the gap between research evidence and practice.

conclusionsIndividual, departmental and organisational level contextual factors can play a major role in implementation within complex health services. HCPs highlighted how in combination with clinical guideline development, implementation of evidence could be increased. Further research after a longer period of implementation could investigate how initiatives might be optimised to promote the uptake of evidence, improve implementation and expedite behaviour change.

Indexed as

Education, Medical, ContinuingEvidence-Based MedicineFocus GroupsHealth Services ResearchHumansInterviews as TopicMidwiferyNeonatologyObstetricsProgram DevelopmentQuality of Health CareBarriersDisseminationEvidence-informed practiceFacilitatorsFocus groupsHealth services researchImplementation scienceInterviewsKnowledge translationSustainability

Identifiers

PMID30841872
PMCPMC6402168

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.