↓ Skip to main content

Applying the Theoretical Domains Framework to identify barriers and targeted interventions to enhance nurses’ use of electronic medication management systems in two Australian hospitals

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
60 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
255 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
Applying the Theoretical Domains Framework to identify barriers and targeted interventions to enhance nurses’ use of electronic medication management systems in two Australian hospitals
Published in
Implementation Science, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13012-017-0572-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Deborah Debono, Natalie Taylor, Wendy Lipworth, David Greenfield, Joanne Travaglia, Deborah Black, Jeffrey Braithwaite

Abstract

Medication errors harm hospitalised patients and increase health care costs. Electronic Medication Management Systems (EMMS) have been shown to reduce medication errors. However, nurses do not always use EMMS as intended, largely because implementation of such patient safety strategies requires clinicians to change their existing practices, routines and behaviour. This study uses the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to identify barriers and targeted interventions to enhance nurses' appropriate use of EMMS in two Australian hospitals. This qualitative study draws on in-depth interviews with 19 acute care nurses who used EMMS. A convenience sampling approach was used. Nurses working on the study units (N = 6) in two hospitals were invited to participate if available during the data collection period. Interviews inductively explored nurses' experiences of using EMMS (step 1). Data were analysed using the TDF to identify theory-derived barriers to nurses' appropriate use of EMMS (step 2). Relevant behaviour change techniques (BCTs) were identified to overcome key barriers to using EMMS (step 3) followed by the identification of potential literature-informed targeted intervention strategies to operationalise the identified BCTs (step 4). Barriers to nurses' use of EMMS in acute care were represented by nine domains of the TDF. Two closely linked domains emerged as major barriers to EMMS use: Environmental Context and Resources (availability and properties of computers on wheels (COWs); technology characteristics; specific contexts; competing demands and time pressure) and Social/Professional Role and Identity (conflict between using EMMS appropriately and executing behaviours critical to nurses' professional role and identity). The study identified three potential BCTs to address the Environmental Context and Resources domain barrier: adding objects to the environment; restructuring the physical environment; and prompts and cues. Seven BCTs to address Social/Professional Role and Identity were identified: social process of encouragement; pressure or support; information about others' approval; incompatible beliefs; identification of self as role model; framing/reframing; social comparison; and demonstration of behaviour. It proposes several targeted interventions to deliver these BCTs. The TDF provides a useful approach to identify barriers to nurses' prescribed use of EMMS, and can inform the design of targeted theory-based interventions to improve EMMS implementation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 255 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 254 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 50 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 13%
Researcher 28 11%
Student > Bachelor 28 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 5%
Other 44 17%
Unknown 57 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 66 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 32 13%
Psychology 28 11%
Social Sciences 14 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 4%
Other 43 17%
Unknown 63 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 27 May 2018.
All research outputs
#2,198,845
of 23,325,355 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#487
of 1,728 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,404
of 309,742 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#19
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,325,355 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,728 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 309,742 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.