Cited by 1,003Health Policy Implementation ScienceHealth Sciences Research and EducationClinical practice guidelines implementation

Tailored interventions to overcome identified barriers to change: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes

Open access
Baker, Richard, Camosso-Stefinovic, Janette, Gillies, Clare, Shaw, Elizabeth J, Cheater, Francine, Flottorp, Signe, Robertson, Noelle·2010·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In the previous version of this review, the effectiveness of interventions tailored to barriers to change was found to be uncertain. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of interventions tailored to address identified barriers to change on professional practice or patient outcomes. SEARCH STRATEGY: For this update, in addition to the EPOC Register and pending files, we searched the following databases without language restrictions, from inception until August 2007: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, BNI and HMIC. We searched the National Research Register to November 2007. We undertook further searches to October 2009 to identify potentially eligible published or ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions tailored to address prospectively identified barriers to change that reported objectively measured professional practice or healthcare outcomes in which at least one group received an intervention designed to address prospectively identified barriers to change. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed quality and extracted data. We undertook quantitative and qualitative analyses. The quantitative analyses had two elements.1. We carried out a meta-regression to compare interventions tailored to address identified barriers to change with either no interventions or an intervention(s) not tailored to the barriers.2. We carried out heterogeneity analyses to investigate sources of differences in the effectiveness of interventions. These included the effects of: risk of bias, concealment of allocation, rigour of barrier analysis, use of theory, complexity of interventions, and the reported presence of administrative constraints. MAIN RESULTS: We included 26 studies comparing an intervention tailored to address identified barriers to change to no intervention or an intervention(s) not tailored to the barriers. The effect sizes of these studies varied both across and within studies.Twelve studies provided enough data to be included in the quantitative analysis. A meta-regression model was fitted adjusting for baseline odds by fitting it as a covariate, to obtain the pooled odds ratio of 1.54 (95% CI, 1.16 to 2.01) from Bayesian analysis and 1.52 (95% CI, 1.27 to 1.82, P < 0.001) from classical analysis. The heterogeneity analyses found that no study attributes investigated were significantly associated with effectiveness of the interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Interventions tailored to prospectively identified barriers are more likely to improve professional practice than no intervention or dissemination of guidelines. However, the methods used to identify barriers and tailor interventions to address them need further development. Research is required to determine the effectiveness of tailored interventions in comparison with other interventions.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/14651858.cd005470.pub2

Cites

155 of 155 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Competing priorities, lack of motivation, and low awareness of the intervention were shown to impede implementation.

    “Competing priorities [42, 57, 59, 62, 63, 70, 82], lack of motivation [31, 39, 42, 57, 68, 81] and low awareness of the intervention [31, 35, 38, 39, 43, 44, 68, 75, 80, 81] were shown to impede implementation.”

    From Achieving change in primary care—causes of the evidence to practice gap: systematic reviews of reviews (2015) · cites this paper as [63]

    The Results (Description of studies; page not specified) identify a perception that a clinical issue was not a priority, negative staff attitudes, and lack of time as barriers, supporting the competing-priorities point and relating to motivation. They do not identify lack of motivation specifically or low awareness of the intervention as barriers. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Several new studies of tailored intervention strategies have been published since the last revision of this review.

    “Since the publication of the last revision of this review (Baker 2010), several new studies of tailored intervention strategies have been published.”

    From Tailored interventions to address determinants of practice (2015) · cites this paper as Baker 2010

  • Two review authors independently extracted the data from included studies.

    “Two review authors independently extracted the data from included studies by using a revised version of the data extraction form used in the previous version of the review (Baker 2010).”

    From Tailored interventions to address determinants of practice (2015) · cites this paper as Baker 2010

  • In this update, we identified an additional nine studies, seven of which had been published since the previous version of the review.

    “In this update of our review of randomised trials of tailored implementation interventions, we identified an additional nine studies, seven of which had been published since the previous version of the review (Baker 2010).”

    From Tailored interventions to address determinants of practice (2015) · cites this paper as Baker 2010

  • The previous version of the review included 26 trials.

    “26 were included in the previous version (Baker 2010)”

    From Tailored interventions to address determinants of practice (2015) · cites this paper as Baker 2010

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 156 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Fretheim A Oxman AD Flottorp S Improving prescribing of antihypertensive and cholesterol-lowering drugs: a method for identifying and addressing barriers to change BMC Health Services Research 3 9 2004 4 1 23 15347426 PMC517506
  2. Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group Data Collection Checklist EPOC resources for review authors 2002 http://www.epoc.cochrane.org/en/handsearchers.html Revised
  3. Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group Updated 2007 Guide for Review Authors. 3 - Developing a protocol http://www.epoc.cochrane.org/en/handsearchers.html
  4. Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group last accessed: 24 November 2009 EPOC resources for review authors http://www.epoc.cochrane.org/en/handsearchers.html
  5. Légaré F Straus S Tetroe J Graham ID Assessing barriers and facilitators to knowledge use Knowledge Translation in Health Care 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Oxford Chapter 3.4

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Baker, R., Camosso-Stefinovic, J., Gillies, C., Shaw, E. J., Cheater, F., Flottorp, S., & Robertson, N.
Affiliations
  • University of Leicester (GB)
  • National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (GB)
  • Glasgow Caledonian University (GB)
  • Nasjonalt Kunnskapssenter for Helsetjenesten (NO)
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Published
2010-03-17
Issue
3
Pages
CD005470-CD005470
ISSN
1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2100564574
Cited by
1,003
References
156
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 39 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 43 · 2021: 61 · 2020: 55 · 2019: 44 · 2018: 43 · 2017: 59 · 2016: 68 · 2015: 108 · 2014: 97 · 2013: 87 · 2012: 67
Type
reference entry
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Leicester Research Archive (University of Leicester) (submittedVersion)
  • ResearchOnline (Glasgow Caledonian University) (submittedVersion)
  • UEA Digital Repository (University of East Anglia) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
Keywords
intervention, barriers to change, professional practice change, health care outcomes, behaviour change interventions, intervention tailoring, guideline dissemination, risk of bias, allocation concealment, theory-based intervention, administrative constraints, smoking cessation, physical activity promotion, diabetes self-management, chronic disease management
MeSH terms
Humans, Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care, Professional Practice, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review