The DOI matches its Crossref record; 18 of the 18 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Hospital-based interventions: a systematic review of staff-reported barriers and facilitators to implementation processes
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Translation of evidence-based interventions into hospital systems can provide immediate and substantial benefits to patient care and outcomes, but successful implementation is often not achieved. Existing literature describes a range of barriers and facilitators to the implementation process. This systematic review identifies and explores relationships between these barriers and facilitators to highlight key domains that need to be addressed by researchers and clinicians seeking to implement hospital-based, patient-focused interventions. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, PsychInfo, Embase, Web of Science, and CINAHL using search terms focused specifically on barriers and facilitators to the implementation of patient-focused interventions in hospital settings. To be eligible, papers needed to have collected formal data (qualitative or quantitative) that specifically assessed the implementation process, as experienced by the staff involved. RESULTS: Of 4239 papers initially retrieved, 43 papers met inclusion criteria. Staff-identified barriers and facilitators to implementation were grouped into three main domains: system, staff, and intervention. Bi-directional associations were evident between these domains, with the strongest links evident between staff and intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Researchers and health professionals engaged in designing patient-focused interventions need to consider barriers and facilitators across all three identified domains to increase the likelihood of implementation success. The interrelationships between domains are also crucial, as resources in one area can be leveraged to address barriers in others. These findings emphasize the importance of careful intervention design and pre-implementation planning in response to the specific system and staff context in order to increase likelihood of effective and sustainable implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This review was registered on the PROSPERO database: CRD42017057554 in February 2017.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & for the PRISMA Group (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535 · Cited by 83,823
The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2529310 · Cited by 81,148
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & the PRISMA Group* (2009) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135 · Cited by 37,554
Damschroder, L. J., Aron, D. C., Keith, R. E., Kirsh, S. R., Alexander, J. A., & Lowery, J. C. (2009) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/1748-5908-4-50 · Cited by 14,496
Proctor, E., Silmere, H., Raghavan, R., Hovmand, P., Aarons, G., Bunger, A., Griffey, R., & Hensley, M. (2011) · Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research · doi:10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7 · Cited by 8,721
Diffusion of Innovations in Service Organizations: Systematic Review and Recommendations
GREENHALGH, T., ROBERT, G., MACFARLANE, F., BATE, P., & KYRIAKIDOU, O. (2004) · The Milbank Quarterly · doi:10.1111/j.0887-378x.2004.00325.x · Cited by 7,448
Qualitative research: standards, challenges, and guidelines
Malterud, K. (2001) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(01)05627-6 · Cited by 5,014
From best evidence to best practice: effective implementation of change in patients' care
Grol, R., & Grimshaw, J. (2003) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(03)14546-1 · Cited by 4,531
Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks
Nilsen, P. (2015) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/s13012-015-0242-0 · Cited by 4,447
Qualitative research in health care: Assessing quality in qualitative research
Mays, N. (2000) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.320.7226.50 · Cited by 3,742
Implementation strategies: recommendations for specifying and reporting
Proctor, E. K., Powell, B. J., & McMillen, J. C. (2013) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/1748-5908-8-139 · Cited by 2,585
Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies (StaRI) Statement
Pinnock, H., Barwick, M., Carpenter, C. R., Eldridge, S., Grandes, G., Griffiths, C. J., Rycroft-Malone, J., Meissner, P., Murray, E., Patel, A., et al. (2017) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.i6795 · Cited by 1,446
Pluye, P., Gagnon, M.-P., Griffiths, F., & Johnson-Lafleur, J. (2009) · International Journal of Nursing Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.01.009 · Cited by 1,119
Tailored interventions to address determinants of practice
Baker, R., Camosso-Stefinovic, J., Gillies, C., Shaw, E. J., Cheater, F., Flottorp, S., Robertson, N., Wensing, M., Fiander, M., Eccles, M. P., et al. (2015) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd005470.pub3 · Cited by 711 · cited 1×
“While much research in implementation science has focused on the contextual factors such as system and staff influences, recent research has highlighted this important role that intervention design plays in implementation processes [63].”
BackgroundGrey literature in meta-analyses of randomized trials of health care interventions
Hopewell, S., McDonald, S., Clarke, M. J., & Egger, M. (2007) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.mr000010.pub3 · Cited by 598 · cited 1×
“There is significant debate about the exclusion of grey literature and unpublished research in systematic reviews, and it is noted that in choosing to exclude this research, there is a risk of publication bias in the findings presented [64].”
BackgroundPai, M., Lloyd, N. S., Cheng, J., Thabane, L., Spencer, F. A., Cook, D. J., Haynes, R. B., Schünemann, H. J., & Douketis, J. D. (2013) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/1748-5908-8-1 · Cited by 376
Development and assessment of the Alberta Context Tool
Estabrooks, C. A., Squires, J. E., Cummings, G. G., Birdsell, J. M., & Norton, P. G. (2009) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/1472-6963-9-234 · Cited by 317
Sorsdahl, K., Myers, B., Ward, C., Matzopoulos, R., Mtukushe, B., Nicol, A., & Stein, D. J. (2014) · International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion · doi:10.1080/17457300.2013.811267 · Cited by 31
Cited by
Davies, F., Shepherd, H. L., Beatty, L., Clark, B., Butow, P., & Shaw, J. (2020) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/17362 · Cited by 110
“A recent review of staff-reported barriers to and facilitators of hospital-based interventions of any kind (web-based or face-to-face) [11] identified 3 key domains that may affect implementation success—system (eg, workload and workflow, physical structure and resources, culture, communication, and external pressures…”
BackgroundSelf-citationBach‐Mortensen, A. M., & Verboom, B. (2020) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.1447 · Cited by 69
Jauk, S., Kramer, D., Avian, A., Berghold, A., Leodolter, W., & Schulz, S. (2021) · Journal of Medical Systems · doi:10.1007/s10916-021-01727-6 · Cited by 59
Chapman, A., Rankin, N. M., Jongebloed, H., Yoong, S. L., White, V., Livingston, P. M., Hutchinson, A. M., & Ugalde, A. (2023) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-023-02285-3 · Cited by 36
Self-citationvan der Westhuizen, C., Myers, B., Malan, M., Naledi, T., Roelofse, M., Stein, D. J., Lahri, S., & Sorsdahl, K. (2019) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0224951 · Cited by 32
Metadata
- Authors
- Geerligs, L., Rankin, N. M., Shepherd, H. L., & Butow, P.
- Venue
- Implementation Science
- Published
- 2018-02-23
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 36-36
- ISSN
- 1748-5908 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2797942965
- Cited by
- 480
- References
- 18
- FWCI
- 8.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
