↓ Skip to main content

Health professionals’ views on the barriers and enablers to evidence-based practice for acute stroke care: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, June 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 (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
33 X users
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
76 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
269 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
Health professionals’ views on the barriers and enablers to evidence-based practice for acute stroke care: a systematic review
Published in
Implementation Science, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13012-017-0599-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Leonard Baatiema, Michael E. Otim, George Mnatzaganian, Ama de-Graft Aikins, Judith Coombes, Shawn Somerset

Abstract

Adoption of contemporary evidence-based guidelines for acute stroke management is often delayed due to a range of key enablers and barriers. Recent reviews on such barriers focus mainly on specific acute stroke therapies or generalised stroke care guidelines. This review examined the overall barriers and enablers, as perceived by health professionals which affect how evidence-based practice guidelines (stroke unit care, thrombolysis administration, aspirin usage and decompressive surgery) for acute stroke care are adopted in hospital settings. A systematic search of databases was conducted using MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library and AMED (Allied and Complementary Medicine Database from 1990 to 2016. The population of interest included health professionals working clinically or in roles responsible for acute stroke care. There were no restrictions to the study designs. A quality appraisal tool for qualitative studies by the Joanna Briggs Institute and another for quantitative studies by the Centre for Evidence-Based Management were used in the present study. A recent checklist to classify barriers and enablers to health professionals' adherence to evidence-based practice was also used. Ten studies met the inclusion criteria out of a total of 9832 search results. The main barriers or enablers identified included poor organisational or institutional level support, health professionals' limited skills or competence to use a particular therapy, low level of awareness, familiarity or confidence in the effectiveness of a particular evidence-based therapy, limited medical facilities to support evidence uptake, inadequate peer support among health professionals', complex nature of some stroke care therapies or guidelines and patient level barriers. Despite considerable evidence supporting various specific therapies for stroke care, uptake of these therapies is compromised by barriers across organisational, patients, guideline interventions and health professionals' domains. As a result, we recommend that future interventions and health policy directions should be informed by these findings in order to optimise uptake of best practice acute stroke care. Further studies from low- to middle-income countries are needed to understand the barriers and enablers in such settings. The review protocol was registered in the international prospective register of systematic reviews, PROSPERO 2015 (Registration Number: CRD42015023481 ).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 33 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 269 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 268 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 38 14%
Student > Bachelor 28 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 9%
Researcher 21 8%
Student > Postgraduate 20 7%
Other 56 21%
Unknown 83 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 67 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 47 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 4%
Unspecified 7 3%
Social Sciences 6 2%
Other 40 15%
Unknown 90 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 17 June 2022.
All research outputs
#2,007,177
of 25,765,370 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#381
of 1,821 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,543
of 332,678 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#7
of 36 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 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% 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 79% 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 332,678 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.