3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Barriers to and enablers of the implementation of an ICF-based intake tool in clinical otology and audiology practice—A qualitative pre-implementation study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The authors are developing an intake tool based on the Brief International Classification of Functioning Disability and Health Core Set for Hearing Loss, by operationalizing its categories into a Patient Reported Outcome Measure. This study was aimed at identifying enablers and barriers to using this tool as perceived by hearing health professionals (HHPs) and patients. Focus groups and interviews were held with HHPs (ENT surgeons, N = 14; audiologists, N = 8) and patients (N = 18). Interview questions were based on the Capability-Opportunity-Motivation-Behavior (COM-B) model. Using the COM-B model and the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), transcript fragments were divided into meaning units, which were then categorized into capability-, opportunity- and motivation-related barriers and enablers. These were further specified into TDF domains. HHP barriers included: lack of time to use the tool (O); and fear of being made responsible for addressing any emerging problems, which may be outside the expertise of the HHP (M). Enablers included integration of the tool in the electronic patient record (O); opportunity for the patient to be better prepared for the intake visit (M); and provision of a complete picture of the patient’s functioning via the tool (M). Patient’ barriers included fear of losing personal contact with the HHP (M); and fear that use of the tool might negatively affect conversations with the HHP (M). Enablers included knowledge on the aim and relevance of the tool (C); expected better self-preparation (M); and a more focused intake (M). These findings suggest that an intervention is needed to enhance HHPs’ knowledge, skills and motivation regarding the relevance and the clinical usefulness of the tool. Providing clear and specific information on the purpose of the tool can also enhance patient motivation. For both HHPs and patients, opportunities relating to the (digital) administration and the design of the tool provide additional targets for successful implementation.

          Related collections

          Most cited references30

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Stages and processes of self-change of smoking: toward an integrative model of change.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The impact of measuring patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice: a systematic review of the literature.

            The purpose of this paper is to summarize the best evidence regarding the impact of providing patient-reported outcomes (PRO) information to health care professionals in daily clinical practice. Systematic review of randomized clinical trials (Medline, Cochrane Library; reference lists of previous systematic reviews; and requests to authors and experts in the field). Out of 1,861 identified references published between 1978 and 2007, 34 articles corresponding to 28 original studies proved eligible. Most trials (19) were conducted in primary care settings performed in the USA (21) and assessed adult patients (25). Information provided to professionals included generic health status (10), mental health (14), and other (6). Most studies suffered from methodologic limitations, including analysis that did not correspond with the unit of allocation. In most trials, the impact of PRO was limited. Fifteen of 23 studies (65%) measuring process of care observed at least one significant result favoring the intervention, as did eight of 17 (47%) that measured outcomes of care. Methodological concerns limit the strength of inference regarding the impact of providing PRO information to clinicians. Results suggest great heterogeneity of impact; contexts and interventions that will yield important benefits remain to be clearly defined.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Barriers and Strategies in Guideline Implementation—A Scoping Review

              Research indicates that clinical guidelines are often not applied. The success of their implementation depends on the consideration of a variety of barriers and the use of adequate strategies to overcome them. Therefore, this scoping review aims to describe and categorize the most important barriers to guideline implementation. Furthermore, it provides an overview of different kinds of suitable strategies that are tailored to overcome these barriers. The search algorithm led to the identification of 1659 articles in PubMed. Overall, 69 articles were included in the data synthesis. The content of these articles was analysed by using a qualitative synthesis approach, to extract the most important information on barriers and strategies. The barriers to guideline implementation can be differentiated into personal factors, guideline-related factors, and external factors. The scoping review revealed the following aspects as central elements of successful strategies for guideline implementation: dissemination, education and training, social interaction, decision support systems and standing orders. Available evidence indicates that a structured implementation can improve adherence to guidelines. Therefore, the barriers to guideline implementation and adherence need to be analysed in advance so that strategies that are tailored to the specific setting and target groups can be developed.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: Writing – original draft
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: MethodologyRole: SupervisionRole: ValidationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Funding acquisitionRole: MethodologyRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Funding acquisitionRole: MethodologyRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: MethodologyRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Funding acquisitionRole: MethodologyRole: SupervisionRole: ValidationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS ONE
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                11 December 2018
                2018
                : 13
                : 12
                : e0208797
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Ear & Hearing, Amsterdam Public Health, De Boelelaan, Amsterdam, Netherlands
                [2 ] Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health, De Boelelaan, Amsterdam, Netherlands
                University of Queensland, AUSTRALIA
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0671-0161
                Article
                PONE-D-18-06236
                10.1371/journal.pone.0208797
                6289452
                30533057
                ad48e5ff-7c95-41ff-818e-f5c9c9479111
                © 2018 van Leeuwen et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 27 February 2018
                : 26 November 2018
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 6, Pages: 26
                Funding
                The study was financially supported by the Stichting Het Heinsius-Houbolt Foundation.
                Categories
                Research Article
                People and Places
                Population Groupings
                Professions
                Medical Personnel
                Medical Doctors
                Surgeons
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Health Care
                Health Care Providers
                Medical Doctors
                Surgeons
                People and Places
                Population Groupings
                Professions
                Medical Personnel
                Medical Doctors
                Physicians
                Surgeons
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Health Care
                Health Care Providers
                Medical Doctors
                Physicians
                Surgeons
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Otorhinolaryngology
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Otorhinolaryngology
                Otology
                Audiology
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Health Care
                Patients
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Otorhinolaryngology
                Otology
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Neuroscience
                Sensory Perception
                Hearing
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Psychology
                Sensory Perception
                Hearing
                Social Sciences
                Psychology
                Sensory Perception
                Hearing
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Health Care
                Psychological and Psychosocial Issues
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Anatomy
                Head
                Ears
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Anatomy
                Head
                Ears
                Custom metadata
                There are ethical restrictions on sharing the de-identified data set underlying this study. The informed consent forms provided to the participants did not mention that their data may be shared for publication. The study was approved by the Medical Ethical Committee of Amsterdam UMC, location VUmc, Amsterdam; the Netherlands. One can contact the METc ( metc@ 123456vumc.nl ) to request the data (Reference number 2013-067).

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article