↓ Skip to main content

Barriers, facilitators and views about next steps to implementing supports for evidence-informed decision-making in health systems: a qualitative study

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
29 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
47 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
174 Mendeley
Title
Barriers, facilitators and views about next steps to implementing supports for evidence-informed decision-making in health systems: a qualitative study
Published in
Implementation Science, December 2014
DOI 10.1186/s13012-014-0179-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Moriah E Ellen, Grégory Léon, Gisèle Bouchard, Mathieu Ouimet, Jeremy M Grimshaw, John N Lavis

Abstract

BackgroundMobilizing research evidence for daily decision-making is challenging for health system decision-makers. In a previous qualitative paper, we showed the current mix of supports that Canadian health-care organizations have in place and the ones that are perceived to be helpful to facilitate the use of research evidence in health system decision-making. Factors influencing the implementation of such supports remain poorly described in the literature. Identifying the barriers to and facilitators of different interventions is essential for implementation of effective, context-specific, supports for evidence-informed decision-making (EIDM) in health systems. The purpose of this study was to identify (a) barriers and facilitators to implementing supports for EIDM in Canadian health-care organizations, (b) views about emerging development of supports for EIDM, and (c) views about the priorities to bridge the gaps in the current mix of supports that these organizations have in place.MethodsThis qualitative study was conducted in three types of health-care organizations (regional health authorities, hospitals, and primary care practices) in two Canadian provinces (Ontario and Quebec). Fifty-seven in-depth semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with senior managers, library managers, and knowledge brokers from health-care organizations that have already undertaken strategic initiatives in knowledge translation. The interviews were taped, transcribed, and then analyzed thematically using NVivo 9 qualitative data analysis software.ResultsLimited resources (i.e., money or staff), time constraints, and negative attitudes (or resistance) toward change were the most frequently identified barriers to implementing supports for EIDM. Genuine interest from health system decision-makers, notably their willingness to invest money and resources and to create a knowledge translation culture over time in health-care organizations, was the most frequently identified facilitator to implementing supports for EIDM. The most frequently cited views about emerging development of supports for EIDM were implementing accessible and efficient systems to support the use of research in decision-making (e.g., documentation and reporting tools, communication tools, and decision support tools) and developing and implementing an infrastructure or position where the accountability for encouraging knowledge use lies. The most frequently stated priorities for bridging the gaps in the current mix of supports that these organizations have in place were implementing technical infrastructures to support research use and to ensure access to research evidence and establishing formal or informal ties to researchers and knowledge brokers outside the organization who can assist in EIDM.ConclusionsThese results provide insights on the type of practical implementation imperatives involved in supporting EIDM.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 174 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 171 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 16%
Student > Master 28 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 24 14%
Researcher 24 14%
Other 11 6%
Other 46 26%
Unknown 13 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 54 31%
Social Sciences 32 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 32 18%
Psychology 7 4%
Environmental Science 4 2%
Other 25 14%
Unknown 20 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 March 2018.
All research outputs
#822,367
of 12,651,245 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#271
of 1,326 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,149
of 290,543 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#11
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,651,245 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,326 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 290,543 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.