↓ 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 (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
29 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
53 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
193 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 193 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 190 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 15%
Student > Master 28 15%
Researcher 27 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 27 14%
Other 15 8%
Other 47 24%
Unknown 20 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 53 27%
Social Sciences 35 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 31 16%
Psychology 9 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 3%
Other 28 15%
Unknown 31 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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
#907,796
of 14,557,384 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#257
of 1,436 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,008
of 300,059 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#16
of 132 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,557,384 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 1,436 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 300,059 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 132 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.