↓ Skip to main content

Identifying the barriers and enablers in the implementation of the New Zealand and Australian Antenatal Corticosteroid Clinical Practice Guidelines

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
89 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
Identifying the barriers and enablers in the implementation of the New Zealand and Australian Antenatal Corticosteroid Clinical Practice Guidelines
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12913-016-1858-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

E. L. Mc Goldrick, T Crawford, J. A. Brown, K. M. Groom, C. A. Crowther

Abstract

The ineffective implementation of evidence based practice guidelines can mean that the best health outcomes are not achieved. This study examined the barriers and enablers to the uptake and implementation of the new bi-national (Australia and New Zealand) antenatal corticosteroid clinical practice guidelines among health professionals, using the Theoretical Domains Framework. Semi-structured interviews or online questionnaires were conducted across four health professional groups and three district health boards in Auckland, New Zealand. The questions were constructed to reflect the 14 behavioural domains from the Theoretical Domains Framework. Relevant domains were identified by the presence of conflicting beliefs within a domain; the frequency of beliefs; and the likely strength of the impact of a belief on the behaviour using thematic analysis. The influence of health professional group and organisation on the different barriers and enablers identified were explored. Seventy-three health professionals completed either a semi-structured interview (n = 35) or on-line questionnaire (n = 38). Seven behavioural domains were identified as overarching enablers: belief about consequences; knowledge; social influences; environmental context and resource; belief about capabilities; social professional role and identity; and behavioural regulation. Five behavioural domains were identified as overarching barriers: environmental context and resources; knowledge; social influences; belief about consequences; and social professional role and identity. Differences in beliefs between individual health professional groups were identified within the domains: belief about consequences; social professional role and identity; and emotion. Organisational differences were identified within the domains: belief about consequences; social influences; and belief about capabilities. This study has identified some of the enablers and barriers to implementation of the New Zealand and Australian Antenatal Corticosteroid Clinical Practice Guidelines using the validated Theoretical Domains Framework, as perceived by health professionals. We have identified differences between individual health professional groups and organisations. The identification of these behavioural determinants can be used to enhance an implementation strategy, assist in the design of interventions to achieve improved implementation and facilitate process evaluations to understand why or how change interventions are effective.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 88 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 11%
Researcher 10 11%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Other 12 13%
Unknown 21 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 20 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 16%
Psychology 9 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 7%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Other 8 9%
Unknown 28 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 28 November 2016.
All research outputs
#14,547,784
of 23,298,349 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#5,197
of 7,797 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#179,431
of 315,133 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#100
of 139 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,298,349 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,797 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 315,133 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 139 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.