Barriers and facilitators to implementing pressure injury prevention and management guidelines in acute care: A mixed-methods systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based pressure injury prevention and management is a global health service priority. Low uptake of pressure injury guidelines leads to compromised patient outcomes. Understanding clinicians' and patients' views on the barriers and facilitators to implementing guidelines and mapping the identified barriers and facilitators to the Theoretical Domains Framework and behaviour change techniques will inform an end-user and theoretically informed intervention to improve guideline uptake in the acute care setting. OBJECTIVES: To synthesise quantitative and qualitative evidence on i) hospital clinicians' and inpatients' perceptions and experiences of evidence-based pressure injury practices and ii) barriers and facilitators to implementing guidelines. DESIGN: A convergent integrated mixed-methods systematic review was conducted using the JBI approach. DATA SOURCE: English language peer-reviewed studies published from 2009 to August 2022 were identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Cochrane Central Library. REVIEW METHODS: Included studies reported: i) acute care hospital clinicians' and patients' perceptions and experiences of evidence-based pressure injury practices and ii) barriers and facilitators to implementing guidelines. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used for critical appraisal. Quantitative data was transformed into qualitised data, then thematically synthesised with qualitative data, comparing clinicians' and patients' views. Barriers and facilitators associated with each main theme were mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework and allocated to relevant behaviour change techniques. RESULTS: Fifty-five out of 14,488 studies of variable quality (29 quantitative, 22 qualitative, 4 mixed-methods) met the inclusion criteria. Four main themes represent factors thought to influence the implementation of evidence-based guidelines: 1) nurse-led multidisciplinary care, 2) patient participation in care, 3) practicability of implementation and 4) attitudes towards pressure injury prevention and management. Most barriers identified by clinicians were related to the third theme, whilst for patients, there were multiple barriers under theme 2. Barriers were mainly mapped to the Knowledge domain and Environmental Context and Resources domain and were matched to the behaviour change techniques of "instruction on how to perform a behaviour" and "restructuring the physical environment". Most facilitators mentioned by clinicians and patients were related to themes 1 and 2, respectively, and mapped to the Environmental Context and Resources domain. All patient-related attitudes in theme 4 were facilitators. CONCLUSIONS: These review findings highlight the most influential factors related to implementing evidence-based pressure injury care from clinicians' and patients' views and mapping these factors to the Theoretical Domains Framework and behaviour change techniques has contributed to developing a stakeholder-tailored implementation intervention in acute care settings. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42021250885.

Physical activity interventions using behaviour change theories for women with breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Physical activity is a well-established strategy to alleviate breast cancer-related adverse outcomes. To optimise health benefits, behaviour change theories provide frameworks to support women in improving their physical activity. This review aimed to evaluate (i) the effects of behaviour change theory-based physical activity interventions for women with breast cancer and (ii) the application of these theories. METHODS: Seven online databases were searched. Trials were included if randomised and controlled, involved physical activity interventions ≥ 12 weeks duration, used a behaviour change theory, and participants were < 3 years post-cancer treatment. Risk of bias and theory use were assessed. Data were synthesised narratively and meta-analysed. RESULTS: Forty articles describing 19 trials were included. Overall risk of bias was moderately high. Post-intervention pooled effect estimates were medium for self-reported (SMD = 0.57) and objectively measured physical activity (SMD = 0.52). Most trials cited the social cognitive theory (n = 10) and transtheoretical model (n = 9). Trials rarely applied theories in their entirety, expounded on behavioural mechanisms, or tailored interventions according to behavioural constructs. The most commonly used types of behavioural techniques were goals and planning (n = 18), shaping of knowledge (n = 18), feedback and monitoring (n = 17), and comparisons of outcomes (n = 17). CONCLUSIONS: The included trials were effective for increasing physical activity in women with breast cancer. Theories were applied using a wide range of approaches and levels of rigour, although shared the use of common behavioural techniques. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Future research may benefit breast cancer survivors by more comprehensively applying behaviour change theories, emphasising individual patient needs and goals.

Identification of factors important to study quality in exercise performance studies.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to identify factors important to quality in exercise performance studies, specifically in the domains of aerobic, anaerobic and strength exercise. Factors related to diet and body composition were also targeted as these often influence or change with exercise. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study employing focus groups and a modified Delphi method. METHODS: Academic staff and research students within the discipline of exercise science in a research-intensive university participated in focus groups to generate discipline-specific factors important to study quality. These factors were subsequently presented in a modified Delphi survey to a panel of international researchers with expertise in at least one of the domains. Item consensus was defined as >70% agreement on importance. The initial round contained all items generated from the focus groups. Subsequent rounds only presented items where consensus was not achieved, and additional items suggested by participants. RESULTS: The academic staff (n = 10) and research students (n = 9) generated 22 items generic to all exercise performance studies and 71 domain-specific items. Over two Delphi survey rounds involving 18 international researchers, consensus on importance was achieved for 19 generic items. Identified factors addressed exercise testing and prescription protocols, equipment and compliance to interventions. Consensus on 66 specific items was achieved but was limited by small domain-specific participant numbers (4-8). CONCLUSIONS: Numerous discipline-specific factors were identified as important to study quality. These factors can subsequently be used to inform the development of a tool to evaluate study quality in exercise performance research or inform best clinical practice.