Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34030691›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2021

Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of a structured visual assessment after stroke in municipal health care services.

Torgeir S Mathisen, Grethe Eilertsen, Heidi Ormstad, Helle K Falkenberg

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Understanding Occupational Therapists' Knowledge and Confidence When Assessing for Spatial Neglect: A Special Issue Review.The American journal of occupational therapy : official publication of the American Occupational Therapy Association · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Torgeir S MathisenNational Centre for Optics, Vision and Eye Care, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, University of South-Eastern Norway, Hasbergs vei 36, 3616, Kongsberg, Norway. torgeir.solberg.mathisen@usn.no.
Grethe EilertsenUSN Research Group of Older Peoples' Health, University of South-Eastern Norway, Drammen, Norway.
Heidi OrmstadUniversity of South-Eastern Norway, Drammen, Norway.
Helle K FalkenbergNational Centre for Optics, Vision and Eye Care, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, University of South-Eastern Norway, Hasbergs vei 36, 3616, Kongsberg, Norway.
University of South-Eastern Norway · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStroke is a leading cause of disability worldwide. Visual impairments (VIs) affect 60% of stroke survivors, and have negative consequences for rehabilitation and post-stroke life. VIs after stroke are often overlooked and undertreated due to lack of structured routines for visual care after stroke. This study aims to identify and assess barriers and facilitators to the implementation of structured visual assessment after stroke in municipal health care services. The study is part of a larger knowledge translation project.

methodsEleven leaders and municipal interdisciplinary health care professionals participated in qualitative interviews. During two workshops, results from the interviews were discussed with 26 participants from municipal health care services and user representatives. Data from interviews and workshops were collected before the intervention was implemented and analyzed using content analysis.

resultsThe analysis identified individual and contextual barriers and facilitators. The individual barriers were related to the participants' experiences of having low competence of visual functions and vision assessment skills. They considered themselves as generalists, not stroke experts, and some were reluctant of change because of previous experiences of unsuccessful implementation projects. Individual facilitators were strong beliefs that including vision in stroke care would improve health care services. If experienced as useful and evidence based, the new vision routine would implement easier. Contextual barriers were experiences of unclear responsibility for vision care, lack of structured interdisciplinary collaboration and lack of formal stroke routines. Time constraints and practical difficulties with including the vision tool in current medical records were also expressed barriers. Contextual facilitators were leader support and acknowledgement, in addition to having a flexible work schedule.

conclusionsThis study shows that improving competence about VIs after stroke and skills in assessing visual functions are particularly important to consider when planning implementation of new vision routines in municipal health care services. Increased knowledge about the consequences of living with VIs after stroke, and the motivation to provide best possible care, were individual facilitators for changing clinical practice. Involving knowledge users, solutions for integrating new knowledge in existing routines, along with easily accessible supervision in own practise, are essential facilitators for promoting a successful implementation.

Indexed as

StrokeDelivery of Health CareHealth PersonnelHumansMotivationQualitative ResearchBarriersImplementationKnowledge translationRehabilitationStrokeVisionVisual impairments

Identifiers

PMID34030691
PMCPMC8147019
OpenAlexW3164198254

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.