Lawton Rebecca, Heyhoe Jane, Louch Gemma, Ingleson Emma, Glidewell Liz, Willis Thomas A, McEachan Rosemary R C, Foy Robbie
School of Psychology, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK.
Bradford Institute for Health Research, Temple Bank House, Bradford Royal Infirmary, Duckworth Lane, Bradford, BD9 6RJ, UK.
Implement Sci. 2016 Aug 8;11:113. doi: 10.1186/s13012-016-0479-2.
There are recognised gaps between evidence and practice in general practice, a setting posing particular implementation challenges. We earlier screened clinical guideline recommendations to derive a set of 'high-impact' indicators based upon criteria including potential for significant patient benefit, scope for improved practice and amenability to measurement using routinely collected data. Here, we explore health professionals' perceived determinants of adherence to these indicators, examining the degree to which determinants were indicator-specific or potentially generalisable across indicators.
We interviewed 60 general practitioners, practice nurses and practice managers in West Yorkshire, the UK, about adherence to four indicators: avoidance of risky prescribing; treatment targets in type 2 diabetes; blood pressure targets in treated hypertension; and anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation. Interview questions drew upon the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Data were analysed using framework analysis.
Professional role and identity and environmental context and resources featured prominently across all indicators whilst the importance of other domains, for example, beliefs about consequences, social influences and knowledge varied across indicators. We identified five meta-themes representing more general organisational and contextual factors common to all indicators.
The TDF helped elicit a wide range of reported determinants of adherence to 'high-impact' indicators in primary care. It was more difficult to pinpoint which determinants, if targeted by an implementation strategy, would maximise change. The meta-themes broadly underline the need to align the design of interventions targeting general practices with higher level supports and broader contextual considerations. However, our findings suggest that it is feasible to develop interventions to promote the uptake of different evidence-based indicators which share common features whilst also including content-specific adaptations.
在全科医疗中,证据与实践之间存在公认的差距,而这种情况带来了特殊的实施挑战。我们之前筛选了临床指南建议,以基于包括对患者有显著益处的潜力、改善实践的范围以及使用常规收集的数据进行测量的适用性等标准,得出一组“高影响力”指标。在此,我们探讨卫生专业人员对这些指标依从性的感知决定因素,研究这些决定因素在多大程度上是特定于指标的,或者是否有可能在各指标之间通用。
我们采访了英国西约克郡的60名全科医生、执业护士和执业经理,了解他们对四个指标的依从情况:避免高风险处方;2型糖尿病的治疗目标;治疗高血压的血压目标;以及心房颤动的抗凝治疗。访谈问题借鉴了理论领域框架(TDF)。使用框架分析法对数据进行分析。
专业角色与身份以及环境背景与资源在所有指标中都显著突出,而其他领域的重要性,例如对后果的信念、社会影响和知识,在不同指标之间有所不同。我们确定了五个元主题,代表所有指标共有的更一般的组织和背景因素。
TDF有助于引出一系列关于基层医疗中对“高影响力”指标依从性的报告决定因素。更难确定如果实施策略针对哪些决定因素,将能使变化最大化。这些元主题大致强调了使针对全科医疗的干预措施设计与更高层面的支持和更广泛的背景考虑相一致的必要性。然而,我们的研究结果表明,开发干预措施以促进采用具有共同特征同时也包括针对特定内容进行调整的不同循证指标是可行的。