Premium
Systematic review of determinants influencing knowledge implementation in occupational therapy
Author(s) -
Pellerin MarcAndré,
Lamontagne MarieEve,
ViauGuay Anabelle,
Poulin Valérie
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
australian occupational therapy journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.595
H-Index - 44
eISSN - 1440-1630
pISSN - 0045-0766
DOI - 10.1111/1440-1630.12612
Subject(s) - cinahl , knowledge translation , occupational therapy , systematic review , medline , implementation research , cochrane library , psychology , medical education , medicine , applied psychology , knowledge management , psychological intervention , nursing , computer science , physical therapy , political science , law
Introduction In knowledge translation, implementation strategies are more effective in fostering practice change. When using these strategies, however, many determinants, such as individual or organisational factors, influence implementation. Currently, there is a lack of synthesis concerning how these determinants influence knowledge implementation (KI). The aim of this systematic review was to document how determinants influence KI outcomes with occupational therapists. Method Following the PRISMA statement, we systematically reviewed the literature on KI in occupational therapy across 12 databases: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, AMED, PsychINFO, Cochrane Library, FirstSearch, Web of Science, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, ERIC, Education Source and Sociological Abstracts. Eligible studies reported KI strategies specifically with occupational therapists. Selected studies were appraised for quality with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), we categorised reported mentions of CFIR (sub‐)constructs to identify the determinants studied most often, how they were documented and what influence they had on outcomes. Results Twenty‐two studies were analysed for this review. CFIR (sub‐)constructs were mentioned 81 times, and seven (sub‐)constructs received at least 5% of these mentions (4/81). These were as follows: (i) Adaptability of the practice; (ii) Learning climate; (iii) Leadership engagement; (iv) Available resources; (v) Knowledge and Beliefs about the Intervention; (vi) Individual Stage of Change; and vii) Executing the KI strategy. The Inner setting domain was the most documented and the domain with the most (sub‐)constructs with at least four mentions (3/7). Most studies used questionnaires as assessment tools, but these were mainly non‐standardised scales. The data were too heterogenous to perform a meta‐analysis. Conclusion Seven (sub‐)constructs mentioned most often would benefit from being assessed for salience by researchers intending to develop a KI strategy for occupational therapists. Future research aimed at improving our understanding of KI should also consider using standardised tools to measure the influence of determinants.