Evidence mapPaperPMID 38935601Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

Implementation barriers and facilitators for referral from the hospital to community-based lifestyle interventions from the perspective of lifestyle professionals: A qualitative study.

Leonie M Te Loo, Jasmijn F M Holla, Joyce Vrijsen, Anouk Driessen, Marlinde L van Dijk, Lilian Linders, Inge van den Akker-Scheek, Adrie Bouma, Leah Schans, Linda Schouten and 7 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors.

Leonie M Te LooAmsterdam UMC, Department of Public and Occupational Health, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8142-7692
Jasmijn F M HollaCentre of Expertise Prevention in Care and Wellbeing, Faculty of Health, Sports and Social Work, Inholland University of Applied Sciences, Haarlem, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1204-3134
Joyce VrijsenUniversity Medical Center Groningen, Department of Orthopedics, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Anouk DriessenAmsterdam UMC, Department of Public and Occupational Health, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Marlinde L van DijkAmsterdam UMC, Department of Public and Occupational Health, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Lilian LindersCentre of Expertise Prevention in Care and Wellbeing, Faculty of Health, Sports and Social Work, Inholland University of Applied Sciences, Haarlem, The Netherlands.
Inge van den Akker-ScheekUniversity Medical Center Groningen, Department of Orthopedics, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Adrie BoumaUniversity Medical Centre Groningen, Department Policy Development in Healthcare Relations, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Leah SchansHuis voor de Sport Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Linda SchoutenTeam Sportservice, Halfweg, The Netherlands.
Patrick RijnbeekNL Actief, Ede, The Netherlands.
Rienk DekkerUniversity Medical Centre Groningen, Department of Rehabilitation, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Martine de BruijneAmsterdam UMC, Department of Public and Occupational Health, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1838-1158
Hidde P van der PloegAmsterdam UMC, Department of Public and Occupational Health, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Willem van MechelenAmsterdam UMC, Department of Public and Occupational Health, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Judith G M JelsmaAmsterdam UMC, Department of Public and Occupational Health, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
LOFIT consortium

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeA lifestyle front office (LFO) in the hospital is a not yet existing, novel concept that can refer patients under treatment in the hospital to community-based lifestyle interventions (CBLI). The aim of this study was to identify implementation barriers and facilitators regarding the implementation of an LFO in the hospital from the perspective of CBLI-professionals and to develop evidence-based implementation strategies to reduce these identified barriers.

methodsWe conducted semi-structured interviews until data saturation, with 23 lifestyle professionals working in the community. A semi-structured topic guide was used, inquiring about (1) community-based lifestyle interventions; (2) their views about referral from the LFO; and (3) their preferences, needs and recommendations for collaboration with the LFO in the hospital. The online interviews lasted on average 46 minutes, were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. A thematic content analysis was conducted. Found barriers and facilitators regarding the LFO where mapped using the consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR) whereafter evidence based strategies were developed using the CFIR-Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change Strategy Matching Tool V.1.0 (CFIR-ERIC).

resultsBarriers and facilitators were divided into two main themes: 1) barriers and facilitators related to the referral from LFO to CBLI (i.e. financial, cultural, geographical, quality) and 2) barriers and facilitators related to the collaboration between LFO and CBLI (i.e. referral, communication platform and partnership). Thirty-seven implementation strategies concerning 15 barriers were developed and clustered into six overarching strategies: identify referral options, determine qualifications lifestyle professionals, develop support tools, build networks, facilitate learning collaboratives, and optimize workflow.

conclusionsIn this study, barriers and facilitators for the development of the LFO were found and matching implementation strategies were developed. Practical improvements, like identifying specific referral options or develop support tools, can be implemented immediately. The implementation of other strategies, like connecting care pathways in basic services, primary, secondary and tertiary care, will take more time and effort to come to full potential. Future research should evaluate all implemented strategies.

Indexed as

Life StyleQualitative ResearchReferral and ConsultationAdultFemaleHealth PersonnelHospitalsHumansMaleMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID38935601
PMCPMC11210764

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.