Barriers and facilitators to patient engagement in patient safety from patients and healthcare professionals' perspectives: A systematic review and meta‐synthesis

Nursing Forum ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zahra Chegini ◽  
Morteza Arab‐Zozani ◽  
Sheikh Mohammed Shariful Islam ◽  
Georgia Tobiano ◽  
Samira Abbasgholizadeh Rahimi
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Patient Safety ◽  
Patient Engagement ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Barriers And Facilitators

scholarly journals Barriers and facilitators to implementing clinical imaging guidelines by healthcare professionals using theoretical domains framework: a mixed-methods systematic review protocol

BJR|Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 20210004
Author(s):  
Harriet Nalubega Kisembo ◽  
Ritah Nassanga ◽  
Faith Ameda Ameda ◽  
Moses Ocan ◽  
Alison A Kinengyere ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Financial Incentives ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Information Source ◽  
Theoretical Domains Framework ◽  
Barriers And Facilitators ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Clinical Imaging

Objectives: To identify, categorize, and develop an aggregated synthesis of evidence using the theoretical domains framework (TDF) on barriers and facilitators that influence implementation of clinical imaging guidelines (CIGs) by healthcare professionals (HCPs) in diagnostic imaging Methods: The protocol will be guided by the Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers’ Manual 2014. Methodology for JBI Mixed Methods Systematic Reviews and will adhere to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines (PRISMA-P). Information source will include databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library), internet search (https://www.google.com/scholar), experts’ opinion, professional societies/organizations websites and government bodies strategies/recommendations, and reference lists of included studies. Articles of any study design published in English from 1990 to date, having investigated factors operating as barriers and/or facilitators to the implementation CIGs by HCPs will be eligible. Selecting, appraising, and extracting data from the included studies will be independently performed by at least two reviewers using validated tools and Rayyan – Systematic Review web application. Disagreements will be resolved by consensus and a third reviewer as a tie breaker. The aggregated studies will be synthesized using thematic analysis guided by TDF. Results: Identified barriers will be defined a priori and mapped into 7 TDF domains including knowledge, awareness, effectiveness, time, litigationand financial incentives Conclusion: The results will provide an insight into a theory-based approach to predict behavior-related determinants for implementing CIGs and develop strategies/interventions to target the elicited behaviors. Recommendations will be made if the level of evidence is sufficient Advances in knowledge: Resource-constrained settings that are in the process of adopting CIGs may opt for this strategy to predict in advance likely impediments to achieving the goal of CIG implementation and develop tailored interventions during the planning phase. Systematic review Registration: PROSPERO ID = CRD42020136372 (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO).

scholarly journals m-Health adoption by healthcare professionals: a systematic review

2015 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 212-220 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marie-Pierre Gagnon ◽  
Patrice Ngangue ◽  
Julie Payne-Gagnon ◽  
Marie Desmartis
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Current Knowledge ◽  
Healthcare Providers ◽  
Ease Of Use ◽  
Perceived Usefulness ◽  
Barriers And Facilitators ◽  
Health Utilization ◽  
Privacy And Security ◽  
Security Issues

Abstract Objective The aim of this systematic review was to synthesize current knowledge of the factors influencing healthcare professional adoption of mobile health (m-health) applications. Methods Covering a period from 2000 to 2014, we conducted a systematic literature search on four electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsychInfo). We also consulted references from included studies. We included studies if they reported the perceptions of healthcare professionals regarding barriers and facilitators to m-health utilization, if they were published in English, Spanish, or French and if they presented an empirical study design (qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods). Two authors independently assessed study quality and performed content analysis using a validated extraction grid with pre-established categorization of barriers and facilitators. Results The search strategy led to a total of 4223 potentially relevant papers, of which 33 met the inclusion criteria. Main perceived adoption factors to m-health at the individual, organizational, and contextual levels were the following: perceived usefulness and ease of use, design and technical concerns, cost, time, privacy and security issues, familiarity with the technology, risk-benefit assessment, and interaction with others (colleagues, patients, and management). Conclusion This systematic review provides a set of key elements making it possible to understand the challenges and opportunities for m-health utilization by healthcare providers.

scholarly journals Barriers and facilitators to reducing anticholinergic burden: a qualitative systematic review

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carrie Stewart ◽  
Katie Gallacher ◽  
Athagran Nakham ◽  
Moira Cruickshank ◽  
Rumana Newlands ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Barriers And Facilitators ◽  
Good Communication ◽  
Organisation Of Care ◽  
Anticholinergic Medications ◽  
Provider Perspectives ◽  
Anticholinergic Burden

AbstractBackground Despite common use, anticholinergic medications have been associated with serious health risks. Interventions to reduce their use are being developed and there is a need to understand their implementation into clinical care. Aim of review This systematic review aims to identify and analyse qualitative research studies exploring the barriers and facilitators to reducing anticholinergic burden. Methods Medline (OVID), EMBASE (OVID), CINAHL (EMBSCO) and PsycINFO (OVID) were searched using comprehensive search terms. Peer reviewed studies published in English presenting qualitative research in relation to the barriers and facilitators of deprescribing anticholinergic medications, involving patients, carers or health professionals were eligible. Normalization Process Theory was used to explore and explain the data. Results Of 1764 identified studies, two were eligible and both involved healthcare professionals (23 general practitioners, 13 specialist clinicians and 12 pharmacists). No studies were identified that involved patients or carers. Barriers to collaborative working often resulted in poor motivation to reduce anticholinergic use. Low confidence, system resources and organisation of care also hindered anticholinergic burden reduction. Good communication and relationships with patients, carers and other healthcare professionals were reported as important for successful anticholinergic burden reduction. Having a named person for prescribing decisions, and clear role boundaries, were also important facilitators. Conclusions This review identified important barriers and facilitators to anticholinergic burden reduction from healthcare provider perspectives which can inform implementation of such deprescribing interventions. Studies exploring patient and carer perspectives are presently absent but are required to ensure person-centeredness and feasibility of future interventions.

scholarly journals Barriers and facilitators experienced by patients, carers and healthcare professionals when managing symptoms in infants, children and young people at end-of-life: a mixed methods systematic review protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (7) ◽  
pp. e030566 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katie Greenfield ◽  
Simone Holley ◽  
Daniel Eric Schoth ◽  
Emily Harrop ◽  
Richard Howard ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Young People ◽  
End Of Life ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Barriers And Facilitators ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Synthesis Methods ◽  
Children And Young People

IntroductionThis protocol describes the objective and methods of a systematic review of barriers and facilitators experienced by patients, carers and healthcare professionals when managing symptoms in infants, children and young people (ICYP) at end-of-life.Methods and analysisThe Cochrane Library, PROSPERO, CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science Core Collection, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Database, Evidence Search and OpenGrey will be electronically searched. Reference screening of relevant articles and inquiries to researchers in the field will be undertaken. Studies will be selected if they apply qualitative, quantitative or mixed-methods designs to explore barriers and facilitators experienced by patients, carers and healthcare professionals when managing symptoms in ICYP at end-of-life.Articles will be screened by title and abstract by one reviewer with a second reviewer assessing 10% of the articles. Both reviewers will read and screen all remaining potentially relevant articles. For included articles, one reviewer will extract study characteristics and one will check this.Both reviewers will undertake independent quality assessments of included studies using established and appropriate checklists including The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Qualitative Checklist; The evaluative criteria of credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability; The Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies, and The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Data synthesis methods will be decided after data extraction and assessment.Ethics and disseminationThis review will inform our understanding of symptom management in ICYP at end-of-life. The findings will be reported in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at conferences. The study raises no ethical issues.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019124797

scholarly journals P04 Barriers and facilitators to medicines adherence in children: a systematic review

2020 ◽  
Vol 105 (9) ◽  
pp. e7.3-e8
Author(s):  
Mohammed Aldosari ◽  
Ana Oliveira ◽  
Sharon Conroy
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Parental Education ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Barriers And Facilitators ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Original Research ◽  
List Type ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Good Communication

AimImproving adherence to medicines in children with chronic conditions may lead to significant economic and health benefits.1 To improve adherence, the multifactorial causes of poor adherence should be understood.1 A systematic review for barriers and facilitators to medicines adherence in children was conducted seven years ago.2 We updated this to identify barriers and facilitators to medicines adherence in children reported in the last ten years.MethodA systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, CINAHL, IPA and Cochrane library databases covering the period November 2008 to March 2019. Inclusion criteria were original research studies identifying barriers and/or facilitators of medicines adherence in children (aged 0–18 years) and included all countries and languages. Exclusion criteria included review articles, editorials, conference papers, reports and studies in adults only. As a reliability measure, 5% of titles and abstracts were assessed independently by a second researcher. Quality assessment was performed on all included studies using the STROBE checklist for observational studies and Cochrane collaboration tools for randomised controlled studies and was checked by a second researcher.ResultsOf 9,360 papers identified by the search, only 172 articles met the inclusion criteria. Most studies were conducted in the US (76), with 11 in the UK, six in Canada and the remaining 79 studies in various countries. Diseases studied included: HIV/AIDS (60), asthma (25), kidney or liver diseases and transplants (18), psychiatric disorders (12), inflammatory bowel disease (10), epilepsy (9) and others (38). Various tools were used to identify barriers and facilitators to medicines adherence. These included 131 studies which used individually designed questionnaires, 32 studies used validated questionnaires and the remaining 9 studies used patients’ medical data. Forgetfulness and fear of side effects were the most common reported barriers to medicines adherence. Others reported barriers to adherence included family conflict, weak patient-provider relationships, stigma and discrimination, drug regimen complexity and lack of support from families. Factors reported to facilitate high rates of adherence included the linking of medicine taking with daily life routines, using reminders to avoid forgetfulness, a higher level of caregivers and parental education and good communication between healthcare professionals, patients and parents.ConclusionThe main findings of this systematic review show that children faced many and varied barriers to medicines adherence with different diseases. Using reminders to avoid forgetfulness and good communication between healthcare professionals, patients and parents were the most common facilitators. To achieve optimal adherence, healthcare providers need to be aware of these barriers and to consider the most appropriate facilitators to encourage patients to take their medicines as prescribed.ReferencesBrown MT, Bussell JK. Medication adherence: WHO cares? Mayo Clin Proc 2011;86:304–14.Elliott RA, Watmough DE, Gray NJ, Conroy S, Lakhanpaul M, Pandya H, et al. Talking about medicines (TABS): a multi-method study to understand reasons for medicines non-adherence in children and young people with chronic illness, and to improve their contribution to managing their medicines. Natl Inst Heal Res 2012; 1–423.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document