ArticleTranslational behavioral medicine2024
Reliability and validity of intervention characteristic measures for assessing barriers to evidence-based practice use.
Article in Translational behavioral medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Assessing barriers before implementing an evidence-based practice can increase the chances of successful implementation. This project evaluated measures of intervention characteristics that could affect implementation: evidence strength and quality; relative advantage; adaptability; trialability; complexity; design quality and packaging; perceived cost; compatibility; observability; risk; and burden. Measures (109 items total) for each intervention characteristic were developed in a previous study, using prior measures, and expert feedback. Measures were scored such that higher scores meant a more positive view. Healthcare personnel implementing a new practice (n = 175) completed two surveys, 1 month apart. Participants completed the intervention characteristic item banks and questions on the use of the evidence-based practice. Reliability and validity were assessed for each item bank. All measures had Cronbach's alphas over 0.7 (range: 0.700-0.932) indicating good reliability. Frequent users of the practice reported better levels of each determinant at the first (Cohen's d range: -0.239 to -0.687) and second surveys (Cohen's d range: -0.043 to -1.081) except for costs (0.096) with use on the second survey. This preliminary test of measures to assess determinants of implementing evidence-based practice supports the validity and reliability of these tools. Additional studies are needed to further test the psychometric properties of the measures and develop short forms of each intervention characteristic measure.
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.