Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorEames, Sallyen_US
dc.contributor.authorBennett, Sallyen_US
dc.contributor.authorWhitehead, Maryen_US
dc.contributor.authorFleming, Jenniferen_US
dc.contributor.authorLow, Shanlingen_US
dc.contributor.authorMickan, Sharonen_US
dc.contributor.authorCaldwell, Elizabethen_US
dc.date.accessioned2019-05-29T13:12:29Z
dc.date.available2019-05-29T13:12:29Z
dc.date.issued2018en_US
dc.identifier.issn0045-0766en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/1440-1630.12483en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/381647
dc.description.abstractBackground/aim: Knowledge translation (KT) aims to reduce research‐practice gaps. Few studies have investigated methods to build clinicians’ capacity for KT. To: (i) evaluate the impact of a multifaceted KT capacity‐building intervention; (ii) understand barriers and enablers to clinicians’ use of KT; and (iii) identify useful strategies. Methods: A pre‐post study to develop KT capacity amongst occupational therapy clinicians (n = 46) in a large metropolitan hospital. A customised questionaire (baseline and 18 months) identified KT‐related behaviours and barriers and enablers guided by the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). McNemar's tests and Wilcoxon signed rank tests were completed on matched data (n = 20). At follow‐up additional items explored perceptions of change and usefulness of strategies. Results: At follow‐up, participants had read more clinical guidelines (10 vs. 17) and more participants reported using strategies to increase the use of recommended clinical practices (P = 0.006). The main barriers at baseline were from the TDF domains of ‘attention, memory and decision processes’, ‘knowledge’ and ‘environmental context and resources’, while main enablers were from ‘social/professional role and identity’, ‘reinforcement’, ‘social influence’ and ‘beliefs about consequences’ domains. At follow‐up, significant improvements were seen in ‘knowledge’ (p < 0.001), ‘environmental context & resources’ (P < 0.001), ‘skills’ (P = 0.008) ‘beliefs about consequences’ (P = 0.011), ‘beliefs about capabilities’ (P = 0.018), and ‘memory, attention & decision processes’ (P = 0.048) and participants agreed that KT had become part of the departments’ culture. Strategies perceived most useful included working as a team, having a dedicated staff member, mentoring meetings, department leader support, learning about KT over time, and training sessions. Conclusions: The KT capacity‐building intervention changed one clinician‐reported behaviour and perceived impact of barriers across six domains. Clinicians reported perceived improvement in understanding of – and confidence in – KT, and changes in the culture to one of engaging with KT as part of clinical practice. Further research into KT capacity building is needed.en_US
dc.description.peerreviewedYesen_US
dc.languageEnglishen_US
dc.publisherWiley-Blackwell Publishing Asiaen_US
dc.publisher.placeAustraliaen_US
dc.relation.ispartofpagefrom479en_US
dc.relation.ispartofpageto493en_US
dc.relation.ispartofissue6en_US
dc.relation.ispartofjournalAustralian Occupational Therapy Journalen_US
dc.relation.ispartofvolume65en_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchPublic Health and Health Services not elsewhere classifieden_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchClinical Sciencesen_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchPublic Health and Health Servicesen_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode111799en_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode1103en_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode1117en_US
dc.titleA pre-post evaluation of a knowledge translation capacity-building interventionen_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.type.descriptionC1 - Articlesen_US
dc.type.codeC - Journal Articlesen_US
gro.hasfulltextNo Full Text


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Journal articles
    Contains articles published by Griffith authors in scholarly journals.

Show simple item record