Trial reportHealth research policy and systems2021
Translating evidence into practice: a longitudinal qualitative exploration of allied health decision-making.
Trial report in Health research policy and systems, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Consensus-Building Processes for Implementing Perioperative Care Pathways in Common Elective Surgeries: A Systematic Review.Journal of advanced nursing · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Trial
- Academic writing in medicine and healthcare.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
- The importance of physician engagement in medical research.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- The Feasibility of AgileNudge+ Software to Facilitate Positive Behavioral Change: Mixed Methods Design.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- Rehabilitation after surgery for hip fracture - the impact of prompt, frequent and mobilisation-focused physiotherapy on discharge outcomes: an observational cohort study.BMC geriatrics · 2024Observational
- Beyond forced telehealth adoption: A framework to sustain telehealth among allied health services.Journal of telemedicine and telecare · 2024Observational
- Health workforce perceptions on telehealth augmentation opportunities.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- Experiences and perceptions of final-year nursing students of using a chatbot in a simulated emergency situation: A qualitative study.Journal of nursing management · 2022Article
- A pragmatic evaluation of a public health knowledge broker mentoring education program: a convergent mixed methods study.Implementation science communications · 2022Article
- Mechanism mapping to advance research on implementation strategies.PLoS medicine · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHealth policy and management decisions rarely reflect research evidence. As part of a broader randomized controlled study exploring implementation science strategies we examined how allied health managers respond to two distinct recommendations and the evidence that supports them.
methodsA qualitative study nested in a larger randomized controlled trial. Allied health managers across Australia and New Zealand who were responsible for weekend allied health resource allocation decisions towards the provision of inpatient service to acute general medical and surgical wards, and subacute rehabilitation wards were eligible for inclusion. Consenting participants were randomized to (1) control group or (2) implementation group 1, which received an evidence-based policy recommendation document guiding weekend allied health resource allocation decisions, or (3) implementation group 2, which received the same policy recommendation document guiding weekend allied health resource allocation decisions with support from a knowledge broker. As part of the trial, serial focus groups were conducted with a sample of over 80 allied health managers recruited to implementation group 2 only. A total 17 health services participated in serial focus groups according to their allocated randomization wave, over a 12-month study period. The primary outcome was participant perceptions and data were analysed using an inductive thematic approach with constant comparison. Thematic saturation was achieved.
resultsFive key themes emerged: (1) Local data is more influential than external evidence; (2) How good is the evidence and does it apply to us? (3) It is difficult to change things; (4) Historically that is how we have done things; and (5) What if we get complaints?
conclusionsThis study explored implementation of strategies to bridge gaps in evidence-informed decision-making. Results provide insight into barriers, which prevent the implementation of evidence-based practice from fully and successfully occurring, such as attitudes towards evidence, limited skills in critical appraisal, and lack of authority to promote change. In addition, strategies are needed to manage the risk of confirmation biases in decision-making processes. Trial registration This trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) (ACTRN12618000029291). Universal Trial Number (UTN): U1111-1205-2621.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.