Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31856861›Full record

SynthesisImplementation science : IS2019

Identifying relevant concepts and factors for the sustainability of evidence-based practices within acute care contexts: a systematic review and theory analysis of selected sustainability frameworks.

Letitia Nadalin Penno, Barbara Davies, Ian D Graham, Chantal Backman, Ibo MacDonald, Julie Bain, Alekhya Mascarenhas Johnson, Julia Moore, Janet Squires

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Implementation science : IS, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
21.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 106 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Letitia Nadalin PennoSchool of Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, 451 Smyth Road, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8M5, Canada. lnadalinpenno@hotmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-6805-6073
Barbara DaviesSchool of Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, 451 Smyth Road, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8M5, Canada.
Ian D GrahamSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, 600 Peter Morand, Crescent, Ottawa, ON, K1G 5Z3, Canada.
Chantal BackmanSchool of Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, 451 Smyth Road, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8M5, Canada.
Ibo MacDonaldSchool of Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, 451 Smyth Road, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8M5, Canada.
Julie BainSchool of Medicine, University of Ottawa, 451 Smyth Road, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8M5, Canada.
Alekhya Mascarenhas JohnsonSunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Regional Geriatric Program of Toronto, 2075 Bayview Avenue, Toronto, ON, M4N 3M5, Canada.
Julia MooreThe Center for Implementation, 20 Northampton Dr, Toronto, ON, M9B 4S6, Canada.
Janet SquiresSchool of Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, 451 Smyth Road, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8M5, Canada.
University of Ottawa · CASunnybrook Health Science Centre · CA

Funding

CIHR FDN#143237
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is growing recognition among healthcare professionals that the sustainability of evidence-based practices (EBPs) within different settings is variable and suboptimal. Understanding why a particular EBP might be sustained in one setting and not another remains unclear. Recent reviews illustrate the need to identify and analyze existing frameworks/models/theories (F/M/Ts) that focus solely on the sustainability of EBPs in specific healthcare settings, such as acute care, to illuminate key determinants and facilitate appropriate selection to guide practice and research.

methodsWe conducted a systematic review to extract sustainability frameworks. This involved using two available syntheses of the literature and a systematic search of four databases from January 2015 to July 2018: CINHAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and ProQuest. We included studies published in English, and if they included sustainability F/M/Ts recommended for use in acute care or an unspecified healthcare organization/setting. F/M/Ts explicitly recommended for use in public health and or community settings were excluded. We then conducted a comparative analysis of F/M/Ts using a modified theory analysis approach, to understand the theoretical underpinnings of each F/M/T, their determinants and concepts hypothesized to influence the sustained use of EBPs within an acute care context.

resultsOf 2967 identified citations from the 2 available syntheses and the systematic review, 8 F/M/Ts met the inclusion criteria. We identified 37 core factors, of which 16 were recorded as common factors (occurring within 4 or more of the 8 included F/M/Ts). All factors grouped into 7 main themes: innovation, adopters, leadership and management, inner context, inner processes, outer context, and outcomes.

conclusionsThis systematic review is the first to include a comprehensive analysis of healthcare sustainability F/M/Ts for the sustained use of EBPs in acute care settings. Findings reveal insights into sustainability as a "process or ongoing stage of use" following initial implementation, suggesting this construct should be added to the definition of sustainability. Results provide a resource of available F/M/Ts and hypothesized factors to consider for acute care team members who are planning or currently implementing EBPs with the goal of improving patient outcomes. It also provides a basis for future research on sustainability in acute care.

Indexed as

Critical CareEvidence-Based PracticeHumansEvidence-based practices/guidelines/programs/interventionsFrameworksInnovationsInstitutionalizationModelsRoutinizationSustainmentTheories; SustainabilityUtilization

Identifiers

PMID31856861
PMCPMC6923954
OpenAlexW2995708840

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.