Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37415244›Full record

ArticleAdvances in simulation (London, England)2023

Identification of the barriers and enablers for receiving a speaking up message: a content analysis approach.

Melanie Barlow, Kate J Morse, Bernadette Watson, Fiona Maccallum

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Advances in simulation (London, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Melanie BarlowFaculty of Health Sciences, Australian Catholic University, 1100 Nudgee Road, Banyo, QLD, Australia. mel.barlow@acu.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1192-5757
Kate J MorseCollege of Nursing & Health Professions, Drexel University, 245 N 15Th Street, Mail Stop 501, 4Th Floor, Room 4606, Philadelphia, PA, 19102, USA.
Bernadette WatsonSchool of Psychology, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, QLD, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2419-7752
Fiona MaccallumSchool of Psychology, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, QLD, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3006-0712
The University of Queensland · AUDrexel University · USHong Kong Polytechnic University · HK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWithin healthcare, the barriers and enablers that influence clinicians' ability to speak up are well researched. However, despite the receiver of the message being identified as a key barrier to a speaker voicing a concern, there have been very few receiver-focused studies. As a result, little is known about the barriers and enablers that influence message reception. Understanding these can help inform speaking up training and ultimately enhance patient safety through more effective clinical communication.

objectivesTo identify enabling or inhibiting factors that influence the receiver's reception and response to a speaking up message, and if the identified barriers and enablers are related to speaker or receiver characteristics. DESIGN AND

methodsTwenty-two interdisciplinary simulations were video recorded and transcribed. Simulation participants formed the patient discharge team and were receivers of a speaking up message, delivered by a nurse at the patient's bedside. How the message was delivered (verbose or abrupt wording), was manipulated and counterbalanced across the simulations. Within the post simulation debriefs, barriers and enablers of being a receiver of a message were explored using content analysis. SETTING/

participantsThis study took place in a large Australian tertiary healthcare setting. Participants were qualified clinicians of varying disciplines and specialties.

resultsA total of 261 barriers and 285 enablers were coded. Results showed that how the message was delivered (differing tone, phases, and manner) influenced what receivers identified as barriers and enablers. Additionally, the receiver's own cognitive processes, such as making positive attributions of the speaker and attempting to build rapport and collegiality, better enabled message reception and response. Receiver behaviour was negatively impacted by listening to fix, rather than understand, and not knowing in the moment how to manage their own reactions and appropriately frame a response.

conclusionThe debriefings identified key barriers and enablers to receiving a speaking up message that differ from those previously identified for senders of the speaking up message. Current speaking up programs are predominately speaker centric. This study identified that both speaker and receiver behaviour influenced message reception. Therefore, training must place equal attention on both the speaker and receiver and be inclusive of experiential conversational rehearsal of both positive and challenging encounters.

Indexed as

DebriefHealthcare communicationInterprofessional educationPatient safetyReceiverSimulationSpeaking up

Identifiers

PMID37415244
PMCPMC10324134
OpenAlexW4383343788

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.