Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32560697›Full record

SynthesisBMC family practice2020

Barriers to and facilitators of the implementation of multi-disciplinary care pathways in primary care: a systematic review.

Eva Seckler, Verena Regauer, Thomas Rotter, Petra Bauer, Martin Müller

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC family practice, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.3field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 86 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Practical insights for enhancing primary care rehabilitation services in low-resource contexts.African journal of primary health care & family medicine · 2025
    Article
  18. Review
  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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Eva SecklerCentre for Research, Development and Technology Transfer, Rosenheim Technical University of Applied Sciences, Hochschulstraße 1, 83024, Rosenheim, Germany. eva.seckler@th-rosenheim.de.ORCID 0000-0002-0453-3096
Verena RegauerCentre for Research, Development and Technology Transfer, Rosenheim Technical University of Applied Sciences, Hochschulstraße 1, 83024, Rosenheim, Germany.
Thomas RotterHealthcare Quality Programs, Queen's University, 84 Barrie Street, Kingston, Ontario, K7L 3N6, Canada.
Petra BauerCentre for Research, Development and Technology Transfer, Rosenheim Technical University of Applied Sciences, Hochschulstraße 1, 83024, Rosenheim, Germany.
Martin MüllerCentre for Research, Development and Technology Transfer, Rosenheim Technical University of Applied Sciences, Hochschulstraße 1, 83024, Rosenheim, Germany.
Rosenheim Technical University of Applied Sciences · DEQueen's University · CAZimmer Biomet (Germany) · DEZimmer Biomet (Netherlands) · NL

Funding

Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung 01GY1603C
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCare pathways (CPWs) are complex interventions that have the potential to reduce treatment errors and optimize patient outcomes by translating evidence into local practice. To design an optimal implementation strategy, potential barriers to and facilitators of implementation must be considered. The objective of this systematic review is to identify barriers to and facilitators of the implementation of CPWs in primary care (PC).

methodsA systematic search via Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and MEDLINE via PubMed supplemented by hand searches and citation tracing was carried out. We considered articles reporting on CPWs targeting patients at least 65 years of age in outpatient settings that were written in the English or German language and were published between 2007 and 2019. We considered (non-)randomized controlled trials, controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series studies (main project reports) as well as associated process evaluation reports of either methodology. Two independent researchers performed the study selection; the data extraction and critical appraisal were duplicated until the point of perfect agreement between the two reviewers. Due to the heterogeneity of the included studies, a narrative synthesis was performed.

resultsFourteen studies (seven main project reports and seven process evaluation reports) of the identified 8154 records in the search update were included in the synthesis. The structure and content of the interventions as well as the quality of evidence of the studies varied. The identified barriers and facilitators were classified using the Context and Implementation of Complex Interventions framework. The identified barriers were inadequate staffing, insufficient education, lack of financial compensation, low motivation and lack of time. Adequate skills and knowledge through training activities for health professionals, good multi-disciplinary communication and individual tailored interventions were identified as facilitators.

conclusionsIn the implementation of CPWs in PC, a multitude of barriers and facilitators must be considered, and most of them can be modified through the careful design of intervention and implementation strategies. Furthermore, process evaluations must become a standard component of implementing CPWs to enable other projects to build upon previous experience.

trial registrationPROSPERO 2018 CRD42018087689.

Indexed as

Communication BarriersCritical PathwaysHumansInterdisciplinary CommunicationPatient Care ManagementPrimary Health CareCritical pathwaysGeneral practitionersPrimary health careSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID32560697
PMCPMC7305630
OpenAlexW3036544296

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.