Cited by 31Health Sciences Research and EducationHealth Policy Implementation ScienceClinical practice guidelines implementation

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE IN RURAL AND REMOTE CLINICAL PRACTICE: WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE?

Abstract

ABSTRACT Objective: To critically review the evidence regarding barriers to implementing research findings in rural and remote settings, and the ways those barriers have been addressed. Design: A systematic review that included searching several electronic databases, Internet sites and reference lists of relevant articles, assessment of methodological quality of the studies, and data extraction and analysis where possible. Eligibility for the review was not limited by study design. Settings/Participants: Studies that reported on: (1) barriers to the implementation of evidence by health professionals in rural and remote areas, or (2) interventions for implementing evidence‐based practice or an element of evidence‐based practice in rural and remote areas. Results: There were no experimental data available on the implementation of research findings in rural and remote clinical settings. The small amounts of empirical research undertaken (surveys) showed that some of the problems experienced by general practitioners were exacerbated by rural and remote location, particularly with relation to isolation, lack of time and locum cover, and poor information technology infrastructure. Conclusion: There is a paucity of empirical literature on implementing evidence‐based practice in rural and remote settings. This is in contrast to the large amount of literature available on implementing evidence in other clinical settings. A clear finding from the literature was that getting evidence into practice needs to be context‐specific and yet very little research has been conducted into the rural and remote context. Research is needed into how evidence can be implemented in contextually specific ways in rural and remote areas. What is already known: There is a substantial body of literature about the barriers to implementing research findings into clinical practice and how to address these barriers. This literature includes many systematic reviews and even overviews of systematic reviews. One of the consistent findings of the literature is that the implementation of research findings needs to be context‐specific to have any chance of making lasting and worthwhile changes to practice. There is little work, however, on the context of rural and remote clinical practice. What this study adds: This study aimed to review the literature on the implementation of evidence based practice in rural and remote settings. No experimental studies were found and the limited empirical evidence from surveys found that the rural and remote context exacerbated some of the problems experienced by health professionals in other settings, particularly those related to lack of time, inability to get locum cover and poor and unreliable information technology infrastructure. More research is required to isolate the aspects of rural and remote practice that influence the uptake of research findings.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1440-1584.2003.tb00545.x

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Conflict with patient expectations and concerns about patient and health professional interaction could decrease acceptability of an intervention and impede implementation.

    “Conflict with patient expectations [75] and concerns about patient and health professional interaction, for example, when using the new information system, nurses spent more time on documentation than on direct care [31], could lead to a decrease in acceptability of an intervention and subsequently impede implementation.”

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 14

  1. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 1998, Health in Rural and Remote Australia
  2. National Rural Health Policy Forum, 1999, Healthy Horizons: a Framework for Improving the Health of Rural, Remote and Regional Australians
  3. Oxman, 1995, No magic bullets: a systematic review of 102 trials of interventions to improve professional practice, Canadian Medical Association Journal, 153, 1423
  4. Bero, 1998, Closing the gap between research and practice: an overview of systematic reviews of interventions to promote the implementation of research findings, British Medical Journal, 317, 465, 10.1136/bmj.317.7156.465 · DOI · Paper page
  5. McColl, 1998, General practitioners' perceptions of the route to evidence-based medicine: a questionnaire survey, British Medical Journal, 316, 361, 10.1136/bmj.316.7128.361 · DOI
  6. 2002, The Cochrane Library
  7. National Health and Medical Research Council, 2000, How to use the evidence: assessment and application of scientific evidence.
  8. NHS, 1999, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Getting evidence into practice, Effective Health Care, 5, 1
  9. Taylor J. Dollard J. Blue I. Wilkinson D. Evidence-based practice and rural general practitioners Australia's 6th National Rural Health Conference 2000 http:www.ruralhealth.org.ausixthconftaylorpaper.htm
  10. Farmer, 1997, Information for trained nurses in remote areas: do electronically networked resources provide an answer?, Health Libraries Review, 14, 97, 10.1046/j.1365-2532.1997.06868.x · DOI
  11. Weller, 1999, Evdence-based policy and practice in rural health
  12. McDonald J. Implementing evidence-based health care: a new model for rural areas 6th National Rural Health Conference: Good Health-Good Country from conception to completion 2001 2001
  13. McGowan J. Electronic information access in support of clinical decision making. a comparative study of the impact on rural health care outcomes Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 2000 Suppl. 565 569
  14. Hailey, 2002, Systematic review of evidence for the benefits of telemedicine, Journal of Telemedi-cine and Telecare, 8, 1

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Parsons, J. E., Merlin, T. L., Taylor, J. E., Wilkinson, D., & Hiller, J. E.
Affiliations
University of South Australia (AU)
Corresponding author
Hiller, Janet E.
Venue
Australian Journal of Rural Health
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2003-10
Volume
11
Issue
5
Pages
242-248
ISSN
1038-5282 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2123645831
Cited by
31
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1
FWCI
2.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Australian Journal of Rural Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
Keywords
evidence-based practice, implementation of research findings, rural health, implementation barriers, general practitioners, IT infrastructure, rural isolation
MeSH terms
Data Interpretation, Statistical, Diffusion of Innovation, Humans, Medically Underserved Area, Research, Research Design, Databases, Factual, Rural Health Services, Evidence-Based Medicine, Information Dissemination

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