↓ Skip to main content

Hospital-based interventions: a systematic review of staff-reported barriers and facilitators to implementation processes

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% 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 (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
40 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
256 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
369 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Hospital-based interventions: a systematic review of staff-reported barriers and facilitators to implementation processes
Published in
Implementation Science, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13012-018-0726-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Liesbeth Geerligs, Nicole M. Rankin, Heather L. Shepherd, Phyllis Butow

Abstract

Translation of evidence-based interventions into hospital systems can provide immediate and substantial benefits to patient care and outcomes, but successful implementation is often not achieved. Existing literature describes a range of barriers and facilitators to the implementation process. This systematic review identifies and explores relationships between these barriers and facilitators to highlight key domains that need to be addressed by researchers and clinicians seeking to implement hospital-based, patient-focused interventions. We searched MEDLINE, PsychInfo, Embase, Web of Science, and CINAHL using search terms focused specifically on barriers and facilitators to the implementation of patient-focused interventions in hospital settings. To be eligible, papers needed to have collected formal data (qualitative or quantitative) that specifically assessed the implementation process, as experienced by the staff involved. Of 4239 papers initially retrieved, 43 papers met inclusion criteria. Staff-identified barriers and facilitators to implementation were grouped into three main domains: system, staff, and intervention. Bi-directional associations were evident between these domains, with the strongest links evident between staff and intervention. Researchers and health professionals engaged in designing patient-focused interventions need to consider barriers and facilitators across all three identified domains to increase the likelihood of implementation success. The interrelationships between domains are also crucial, as resources in one area can be leveraged to address barriers in others. These findings emphasize the importance of careful intervention design and pre-implementation planning in response to the specific system and staff context in order to increase likelihood of effective and sustainable implementation. This review was registered on the PROSPERO database: CRD42017057554  in February 2017.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 40 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 369 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 369 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 65 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 36 10%
Researcher 31 8%
Student > Bachelor 31 8%
Other 26 7%
Other 66 18%
Unknown 114 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 75 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 65 18%
Social Sciences 19 5%
Psychology 19 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 11 3%
Other 53 14%
Unknown 127 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 34. 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 26 May 2022.
All research outputs
#1,191,657
of 25,765,370 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#190
of 1,821 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,059
of 344,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#8
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,765,370 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,821 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 344,978 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 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.