Cited by 26Health Policy Implementation ScienceHealth Sciences Research and EducationClinical practice guidelines implementation

Addressing the evidence to practice gap for complex interventions in primary care: a systematic review of reviews protocol

Open access
Lau, Rosa, Stevenson, Fiona, Ong, Bie Nio, Dziedzic, Krysia, Eldridge, Sandra, Everitt, Hazel, Kennedy, Anne, Kontopantelis, Evangelos +6 more·2014·BMJ Open

Abstract

Introduction: Getting the results of research implemented into routine healthcare is often a challenge. The disconnect between the development and implementation of evidence into practice is called the ‘second translational gap’ and is particularly apparent in primary care. To address this gap, we plan to identify, summarise and synthesise currently available evidence by undertaking a systematic review of reviews to: (1) explore barriers and facilitators of implementation of research evidence or complex interventions, and (2) assess the effectiveness of strategies in facilitating implementation of complex interventions in primary care. Methods and analysis: This is a protocol for a systematic review of reviews. We will search MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL and PsycINFO up until December 2013. We will check reference lists of included studies for further studies. Two authors will independently screen the titles and abstracts identified from the search; any discrepancies will be resolved by discussion and consensus. Full-text papers will be obtained and relevant reviews will be selected against inclusion criteria. Eligible reviews have to be based on predominantly primary care in developed countries and examine either factors to implementation or, the effectiveness of strategies to optimise implementation. Data from eligible reviews will be extracted using standardised data abstraction forms. For barriers and facilitators, data will be synthesised using an interpretative meta-synthesis approach. For implementation strategies, findings will be summarised and described narratively and synthesised using a framework approach. All findings will be reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Ethics and dissemination: Ethical approval is not required. The review findings will inform the work of the design and implementation of future studies and will be of interest to a wide audience including health professionals, researchers, health service or commissioning managers and policymakers. Trial registration number: Protocol registration number (PROSPERO CRD42014009410).

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 · 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005548

Cites

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?

  • No formal quality appraisal of the included reviews was undertaken because the review aimed to synthesise qualitative literature and not determine an effect size.

    “For this review, as we aimed to synthesise a body of qualitative literature and not determine an effect size, we did not undertake a formal quality appraisal of the included reviews [22].”

    From Achieving change in primary care—causes of the evidence to practice gap: systematic reviews of reviews (2015) · cites this paper as [22]

    The Methods and analysis section, under “Assessment of methodological quality,” gives the stated rationale for not appraising included studies in RQ1: the authors planned an interpretive synthesis rather than an effect-size estimate. But this is a protocol describing a plan, not a report of what was undertaken, and RQ2 plans to appraise the reporting quality of benchmark review papers using PRISMA. It therefore does not support an unqualified claim that no included reviews were formally appraised. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 23 · Cited by 26

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [8]Linton JD Implementation research: state of the art and future directions. Technovation 2002; 22: 65– 79
  2. [11]EPOC 2002. Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group: Data Collection Checklist. EPOC resources for review authors, revised 2002. http://www.epoc.cochrane.org/en/handsearchers.html
  3. [17]Jensen LA Allen MN Meta-synthesis of qualitative findings. Qual Health Res 1996; 6: 553– 60

Authors
Lau, R., Stevenson, F., Ong, B. N., Dziedzic, K., Eldridge, S., Everitt, H., Kennedy, A., Kontopantelis, E., Little, P., Qureshi, N., Rogers, A., Treweek, S., Peacock, R., & Murray, E.
Affiliations
  • University College London (GB)
  • Arthritis Research UK (GB)
  • Queen Mary University of London (GB)
  • University of Southampton (GB)
  • University of Manchester (GB)
  • University of Nottingham (GB)
  • University of Aberdeen (GB)
  • Archway Healthcare Library, London, UK
Corresponding author
Lau, Rosa
Venue
BMJ Open
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2014-06
Volume
4
Issue
6
Pages
e005548
ISSN
2044-6055 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2149165836
Cited by
26
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 5
FWCI
0.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • BMJ Open (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (acceptedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Aberdeen University Research Archive (Aberdeen University) (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (NF-SI-0513-10103, CL-2006-26-002, RP-PG-0407-10386)
  • Medical Research Council (MR/K006665/1, MC_PC_13042)
  • NIHR School for Primary Care Research
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
knowledge-practice gap, complex interventions, primary care, implementation barriers and facilitators, implementation strategies, implementation research
MeSH terms
Systematic Reviews as Topic, Humans, Primary Health Care, Research Design, Review Literature as Topic, Translational Research, Biomedical

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