ArticleFrontiers in health services2022
The Implementation Process of Two Evidence-Based Protocols: A Spatial Neglect Network Initiative.
Article in Frontiers in health services, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Does prism adaptation treatment reduce spatial neglect and improve function?Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2025Review
- Prism Adaptation Treatment for Right-Sided and Left-Sided Spatial Neglect: A Retrospective Case-Matched Study.Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Spatial neglect, a neurocognitive disorder of lateralized spatial attention, is prevalent among stroke survivors especially in inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs). The ultimate goal of the project was to improve spatial neglect care in inpatient rehabilitation and trained as many OTs as possible using both tools in their regular practices as the means to achieve our overall objective. Therefore, we conducted a project aimed at implementing two evidence-based protocols, one for assessment (KF-NAP®) and the other for treatment (KF-PAT®), and share the implementation process, which included barriers and facilitators identified during and after the process, and implementation outcomes. Methods: Sixteen IRFs were involved. The Knowledge-To-Action Cycle was used to describe the process of knowledge inquiry (training), translating knowledge (implementation) and evaluating the use of knowledge in clinical practice (outcomes). Barriers and strategies were reported using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and identified through a survey, after the study concluded. Results: Thirty-two therapists at the participating sites were trained to some level of the KF-NAP and KF-PAT. Throughout the project and also once after it finished, different barriers were identified by researchers and clinicians, who then determined together actions to eliminate or minimize the barriers. For example, multiple sites reported: "not having time to train other staff at their hospital due to high patient volume and other responsibilities." Discussion: The project shared our implementation process which demonstrated the importance of using implementation methods and incorporating a researcher-clinician partnership, not only for knowledge generation but also knowledge translation. Frequent communications and exchanging information with stakeholders at different levels, may be determinant to the success of each implementation phase. Further research is needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.