Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37821877›Full record

ReviewBMC health services research2023

A qualitative evidence synthesis (QES) exploring the barriers and facilitators to screening in emergency departments using the theoretical domains framework.

Louise Barry, Sylvia Murphy Tighe, Anne Griffin, Damien Ryan, Margaret O'Connor, Christine Fitzgerald, Siobhan Egan, Rose Galvin, Pauline Meskell

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC health services research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Adolescent Substance Use Screening in the Emergency Department.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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.

Louise BarryDepartment of Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Education and Health Sciences, University of Limerick, Castletroy, Limerick, Ireland. Louise.A.Barry@ul.ie.
Sylvia Murphy TigheDepartment of Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Education and Health Sciences, University of Limerick, Castletroy, Limerick, Ireland.
Anne GriffinAgeing Research Centre, Health Research Institute, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland.
Damien RyanEmergency Department, University Hospital Limerick, Dooradoyle, Limerick, Ireland.
Margaret O'ConnorDepartment of Ageing and Therapeutics, University Hospital Limerick, Dooradoyle, Limerick, Ireland.
Christine FitzgeraldAgeing Research Centre, Health Research Institute, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland.
Siobhan EganClinical Research Support Unit, University Hospital Limerick, Dooradoyle, Limerick, Ireland.
Rose GalvinAgeing Research Centre, Health Research Institute, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland.
Pauline MeskellDepartment of Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Education and Health Sciences, University of Limerick, Castletroy, Limerick, Ireland.
University of Limerick · IEUniversity Hospital Limerick · IE

Funding

Health Research Board (ILP-HSR-2017-014)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundValidated screening tools can be utilised to detect early disease processes and risk factors for disease and adverse outcomes. Consequently, identifying individuals in need of early intervention and targeted assessment can be achieved through the implementation of screening in the ED. Successful implementation can be impacted by a lack of resources and ineffective integration of screening into the clinical workflow. Tailored implementation processes and staff training, which are contextually specific to the ED setting, are facilitators to effective implementation. This review will assist in the identification of barriers and facilitators to screening in the ED using a QES to underpin implementation processes. Healthcare workers engage in screening in the ED routinely. Consequently, this review focused on synthesizing the experience of healthcare workers (HCWs) who are involved in this process. This synthesis is informed by a QES protocol published by the lead author in 2021 (Barry et al., HRB Open Res 3:50, 2021). METHODOLOGY: A comprehensive literature search, inclusive of grey literature sources, was undertaken. Initially, an a priori framework of themes was formed to facilitate the interpretation and organisation of search results. A context specific conceptual model was then formulated using "Best fit" framework synthesis which further assisted in the interpretation of data that was extracted from relevant studies. Dual blind screening of search results was undertaken using RAYYAN as a platform. Thirty studies were identified that met the inclusion criteria. Dual appraisal of full text articles was undertaken using CASP, GRADE CERQual assessed confidence of findings and data extraction was performed by two reviewers collaboratively.

findingsThis is the first known synthesis of qualitative research on HCW's experiences of screening in the ED. Predominantly, the findings illustrate that staff experience screening in the ED as a complex challenging process. The barriers and facilitators identified can be broadly categorised under preconditions to screen, motivations to screen and knowledge and skills to screen. Competing interests in the ED, environmental stressors such as overcrowding and an organisational culture that resists screening were clear barriers. Adequate resources and tailored education to underpin the screening process were clear facilitators.

trial registrationPROSPERO: CRD42020188712 05/07/20.

Indexed as

Emergency Service, HospitalHealth PersonnelHumansQualitative ResearchBarriers and facilitators“Best Fit” framework synthesisEmergency care settingsQualitative evidence synthesisScreeningScreening toolsStakeholder experience

Identifiers

PMID37821877
PMCPMC10568862
OpenAlexW4387527180

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.