↓ Skip to main content

Organizational contextual features that influence the implementation of evidence-based practices across healthcare settings: a systematic integrative review

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
215 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
394 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
Organizational contextual features that influence the implementation of evidence-based practices across healthcare settings: a systematic integrative review
Published in
Systematic Reviews, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13643-018-0734-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shelly-Anne Li, Lianne Jeffs, Melanie Barwick, Bonnie Stevens

Abstract

Organizational contextual features have been recognized as important determinants for implementing evidence-based practices across healthcare settings for over a decade. However, implementation scientists have not reached consensus on which features are most important for implementing evidence-based practices. The aims of this review were to identify the most commonly reported organizational contextual features that influence the implementation of evidence-based practices across healthcare settings, and to describe how these features affect implementation. An integrative review was undertaken following literature searches in CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases from January 2005 to June 2017. English language, peer-reviewed empirical studies exploring organizational context in at least one implementation initiative within a healthcare setting were included. Quality appraisal of the included studies was performed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Inductive content analysis informed data extraction and reduction. The search generated 5152 citations. After removing duplicates and applying eligibility criteria, 36 journal articles were included. The majority (n = 20) of the study designs were qualitative, 11 were quantitative, and 5 used a mixed methods approach. Six main organizational contextual features (organizational culture; leadership; networks and communication; resources; evaluation, monitoring and feedback; and champions) were most commonly reported to influence implementation outcomes in the selected studies across a wide range of healthcare settings. We identified six organizational contextual features that appear to be interrelated and work synergistically to influence the implementation of evidence-based practices within an organization. Organizational contextual features did not influence implementation efforts independently from other features. Rather, features were interrelated and often influenced each other in complex, dynamic ways to effect change. These features corresponded to the constructs in the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), which supports the use of CFIR as a guiding framework for studies that explore the relationship between organizational context and implementation. Organizational culture was most commonly reported to affect implementation. Leadership exerted influence on the five other features, indicating it may be a moderator or mediator that enhances or impedes the implementation of evidence-based practices. Future research should focus on how organizational features interact to influence implementation effectiveness.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 394 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 394 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 46 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 37 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 34 9%
Researcher 29 7%
Student > Bachelor 20 5%
Other 66 17%
Unknown 162 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 77 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 40 10%
Social Sciences 28 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 17 4%
Psychology 11 3%
Other 43 11%
Unknown 178 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 10 September 2018.
All research outputs
#3,600,926
of 23,047,237 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#654
of 2,006 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,889
of 327,168 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#16
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,047,237 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,006 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 327,168 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 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 50% of its contemporaries.