35
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The ‘vicious cycle’ of personalised asthma action plan implementation in primary care: a qualitative study of patients and health professionals’ views

      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

          Background

          Personal asthma action plans (PAAPs) have been guideline recommended for years, but consistently under-issued by health professionals and under-utilised by patients. Previous studies have investigated sub-optimal PAAP implementation but more insight is needed into barriers to their use from the perspective of professionals, patients and primary care teams.

          Methods

          A maximum variation sample of professional and patient participants were recruited from five demographically diverse general practices and another group of primary care professionals in one Scottish region. Interviews were digitally recorded and data thematically analysed using NVivo.

          Results

          Twenty-nine semi-structured interviews were conducted (11 adults with asthma, seven general practitioners, ten practice nurses, one hospital respiratory nurse). Three over-arching themes emerged: 1) patients generally do not value PAAPs, 2) professionals do not fully value PAAPs and, 3) multiple barriers reduce the value of PAAPs in primary care. Six patients had a PAAP but these were outdated, not reflecting their needs and not used. Patients reported not wanting or needing PAAPs, yet identified circumstances when these could be useful. Fifteen professionals had selectively issued PAAPs with eight having reviewed one. Many professionals did not value PAAPs as they did not see patients using these and lacked awareness of times when patients could have benefited from one. Multi-level compounding barriers emerged. Individual barriers included poor patient awareness and professionals not reinforcing PAAP use. Organisational barriers included professionals having difficulty accessing PAAP templates and fragmented processes including patients not being asked to bring PAAPs to their asthma appointments.

          Conclusions

          Primary care PAAP implementation is in a vicious cycle. Professionals infrequently review/update PAAPs with patients; patients with out-dated PAAPs do not value or use these; professionals observing patients’ lack of interest in PAAPs do not discuss these. Patients observing this do not refer to their plans and perceive them to be of little value in asthma self-management. Twenty-five years after PAAPs were first recommended, primary care practices are still not ready to support their implementation. Breaking this vicious cycle to create a healthcare context more conducive to PAAP implementation requires a whole systems approach with multi-faceted interventions addressing patient, professional and organisational barriers.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12875-015-0352-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references19

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Knowledge translation of research findings

          Background One of the most consistent findings from clinical and health services research is the failure to translate research into practice and policy. As a result of these evidence-practice and policy gaps, patients fail to benefit optimally from advances in healthcare and are exposed to unnecessary risks of iatrogenic harms, and healthcare systems are exposed to unnecessary expenditure resulting in significant opportunity costs. Over the last decade, there has been increasing international policy and research attention on how to reduce the evidence-practice and policy gap. In this paper, we summarise the current concepts and evidence to guide knowledge translation activities, defined as T2 research (the translation of new clinical knowledge into improved health). We structure the article around five key questions: what should be transferred; to whom should research knowledge be transferred; by whom should research knowledge be transferred; how should research knowledge be transferred; and, with what effect should research knowledge be transferred? Discussion We suggest that the basic unit of knowledge translation should usually be up-to-date systematic reviews or other syntheses of research findings. Knowledge translators need to identify the key messages for different target audiences and to fashion these in language and knowledge translation products that are easily assimilated by different audiences. The relative importance of knowledge translation to different target audiences will vary by the type of research and appropriate endpoints of knowledge translation may vary across different stakeholder groups. There are a large number of planned knowledge translation models, derived from different disciplinary, contextual (i.e., setting), and target audience viewpoints. Most of these suggest that planned knowledge translation for healthcare professionals and consumers is more likely to be successful if the choice of knowledge translation strategy is informed by an assessment of the likely barriers and facilitators. Although our evidence on the likely effectiveness of different strategies to overcome specific barriers remains incomplete, there is a range of informative systematic reviews of interventions aimed at healthcare professionals and consumers (i.e., patients, family members, and informal carers) and of factors important to research use by policy makers. Summary There is a substantial (if incomplete) evidence base to guide choice of knowledge translation activities targeting healthcare professionals and consumers. The evidence base on the effects of different knowledge translation approaches targeting healthcare policy makers and senior managers is much weaker but there are a profusion of innovative approaches that warrant further evaluation.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            An exploration of the factors that influence the implementation of evidence into practice.

            The challenges of implementing evidence-based practice are complex and varied. Against this background a framework has been developed to represent the multiple factors that may influence the implementation of evidence into practice. It is proposed that successful implementation is dependent upon the nature of the evidence being used, the quality of context, and, the type of facilitation required to enable the change process. This study sets out to scrutinize the elements of the framework through empirical enquiry. The aim of the study was to address the following questions: * What factors do practitioners identify as the most important in enabling implementation of evidence into practice? * What are the factors practitioners identify that mediate the implementation of evidence into practice? * Do the concepts of evidence, context and facilitation constitute the key elements of a framework for getting evidence into practice? The study was conducted in two phases. Phase 1: Exploratory focus groups (n = 2) were conducted to inform the development of an interview guide. This was used with individual key informants in case study sites. Phase 2: Two sites with on-going or recent implementation projects were studied. Within sites semi-structured interviews were conducted (n = 17). A number of key issues in relation to the implementation of evidence into practice emerged including: the nature and role of evidence, relevance and fit with organizational and practice issues, multi-professional relationships and collaboration, role of the project lead and resources. The results are discussed with reference to the wider literature and in relation to the on-going development of the framework. Crucially the growing body of evidence reveals that a focus on individual approaches to implementing evidence-based practice, such as skilling-up practitioners to appraise research evidence, will be ineffective by themselves. Key elements that require attention in implementing evidence into practice are presented and may provide a useful checklist for future implementation and evaluation projects.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Enabling the implementation of evidence based practice: a conceptual framework.

              The argument put forward in this paper is that successful implementation of research into practice is a function of the interplay of three core elements--the level and nature of the evidence, the context or environment into which the research is to be placed, and the method or way in which the process is facilitated. It also proposes that because current research is inconclusive as to which of these elements is most important in successful implementation they all should have equal standing. This is contrary to the often implicit assumptions currently being generated within the clinical effectiveness agenda where the level and rigour of the evidence seems to be the most important factor for consideration. The paper offers a conceptual framework that considers this imbalance, showing how it might work in clarifying some of the theoretical positions and as a checklist for staff to assess what they need to do to successfully implement research into practice.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                nicola.ring@stir.ac.uk
                hazel.booth@students.ac.uk
                caroline.wilson@stir.ac.uk
                gaylor.hoskins@stir.ac.uk
                Hilary.Pinnock@ed.ac.uk
                Aziz.Shiekh@ed.ac.uk
                Ruth.Jepson@ed.ac.uk
                Journal
                BMC Fam Pract
                BMC Fam Pract
                BMC Family Practice
                BioMed Central (London )
                1471-2296
                21 October 2015
                21 October 2015
                2015
                : 16
                : 145
                Affiliations
                [ ]School of Health Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling, Scotland UK
                [ ]Nursing, Midwifery and Allied Health Profession Research Unit, University of Stirling, Stirling, Scotland UK
                [ ]Asthma UK Centre for Applied Research, Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland UK
                [ ]Scottish Collaboration for Public Health Research and Policy, West Richmond Street, Edinburgh, Scotland UK
                Article
                352
                10.1186/s12875-015-0352-4
                4618358
                26487557
                dde503a0-6203-4a78-9bba-8f06574502b2
                © Ring et al. 2015

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 11 June 2015
                : 4 October 2015
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2015

                Medicine
                barriers,implementation,personalised asthma action plans,primary care,qualitative,self-management plans

                Comments

                Comment on this article