Barriers to evidence-based practice implementation in physiotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Author:

Paci Matteo1ORCID,Faedda Gianni2,Ugolini Alessandro3,Pellicciari Leonardo4ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Unit of Functional Rehabilitation, Azienda USL Toscana Centro, Viale Michelangiolo, 41, Florence 50125, Italy

2. Graduate Course in Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Florence, Largo Brambilla, 3, Florence 50134, Italy

3. Program in Physical Therapy, University of Florence, Largo Brambilla, 3, Florence 50134, Italy

4. IRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi, Via di Scandicci, 269 I, Florence 50143, Italy

Abstract

Abstract Background To review and meta-analyse the evidence about the prevalence of barriers to evidence-based practice (EBP) reported in physiotherapy. Methods Two independent investigators conducted an extensive electronic search in EMBASE, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and CINAHL databases from their inception to July 2020 and included the retrieved articles if they investigated barriers to EBP among physiotherapy professionals. Subsequently, they extracted data and assessed the methodological quality using a scale described in a similar previous study. The outcome for meta-analysis was frequency of each reported barrier. Sub-analyses were performed grouping studies based on countries where surveys were performed, classified as either developed or developing countries. Results Twenty-nine articles were included in the systematic reviews and meta-analysis. Risk of bias assessment of included studies showed a median score: 4 points (interquartile range: 3–4). The findings of meta-analysis revealed that lack of time was the most frequently reported barrier (53.0% [95% confidence interval, 95%CI, 44.0–62.0]), followed by language (36.0% [95%CI 16.0–62.0]), lack of access (34.0% [95%CI 23.0.27]) and lack of statistical skills (31.0% [95%CI 20.0–44.0]). Lack of skills and lack of generalizability were declared as barriers by 27.0% [95%CI 18.0–38.0] and 23.0% [95%CI 15.0–33.0] of responders, respectively. Lack of support and lack of interest are less frequent, with 16.0% [95%CI 11.0–24.0] and 9.0% [95%CI 6.0–15.0] of responses, respectively. Barriers reported in investigations performed in developed countries were less frequent when compared to those performed in developing countries. Conclusion Organizational issues and methodological skills seem key issues to allow the implementation of EBP, suggesting the need to adopt or enhance organizational and training strategies to facilitate the implementation of the EBP. Quantitative synthesis showed high heterogeneity for all analyses, and therefore, pooled data should be interpreted with caution.

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Subject

Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health,Health Policy,General Medicine

Reference72 articles.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3