Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Addington

Cabana

Campbell

Carlsen

Craig

Grimshaw

Grol

Jensen

Liberati

Linton

Morales

Noblit

Porcheret

Sackett

Salmon

Walsh

Woolf

BMJ Open

English

PubMed

IntroductionGetting the results of research implemented into routine healthcare is often a challenge. The disconnect between the development and implementation of evidence into practice is called the ‘second translational gap’ and is particularly apparent in primary care. To address this gap, we plan to identify, summarise and synthesise currently available evidence by undertaking a systematic review of reviews to: (1) explore barriers and facilitators of implementation of research evidence or complex interventions, and (2) assess the effectiveness of strategies in facilitating implementation of complex interventions in primary care.Methods and analysisThis is a protocol for a systematic review of reviews. We will search MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL and PsycINFO up until December 2013. We will check reference lists of included studies for further studies. Two authors will independently screen the titles and abstracts identified from the search; any discrepancies will be resolved by discussion and consensus. Full-text papers will be obtained and relevant reviews will be selected against inclusion criteria. Eligible reviews have to be based on predominantly primary care in developed countries and examine either factors to implementation or, the effectiveness of strategies to optimise implementation. Data from eligible reviews will be extracted using standardised data abstraction forms. For barriers and facilitators, data will be synthesised using an interpretative meta-synthesis approach. For implementation strategies, findings will be summarised and described narratively and synthesised using a framework approach. All findings will be reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required. The review findings will inform the work of the design and implementation of future studies and will be of interest to a wide audience including health professionals, researchers, health service or commissioning managers and policymakers.Trial registration number Protocol registration number (PROSPERO CRD42014009410)

Lau, Rosa

Stevenson, Fiona

Ong, Bie Nio

Dziedzic, Krysia

Eldridge, Sandra

Everitt, Hazel

Kennedy, Anne

Kontopantelis, Evangelos

Little, Paul

Qureshi, Nadeem

Rogers, Anne

Treweek, Shaun

Peacock, Richard

Murray, Elizabeth

Southampton (e-Prints Soton)

Evidence based practice  Articles on similar topics can be found in the following collections

Addressing the evidence to practice gap for complex interventions in primary care: a systematic review of reviews protocol

R. Lau

F. Stevenson

B. N. Ong

K. Dziedzic

S. Eldridge

H. Everitt

A. Kennedy

E. Kontopantelis

P. Little

N. Qureshi

A. Rogers

S. Treweek

R. Peacock

E. Murray

Crossref

Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.Peer reviewe

Aberdeen University Research

Addressing the evidence to practice gap for complex interventions in primary care : a systematic review of reviews protocol

Getting the results of research implemented into routine healthcare is often a challenge. The disconnect between the development and implementation of evidence into practice is called the 'second translational gap' and is particularly apparent in primary care. To address this gap, we plan to identify, summarise and synthesise currently available evidence by undertaking a systematic review of reviews to: (1) explore barriers and facilitators of implementation of research evidence or complex interventions, and (2) assess the effectiveness of strategies in facilitating implementation of complex interventions in primary care

Lau, R

Stevenson, F

Ong, BN

Dziedzic, K

Eldridge, S

Everitt, H

Kennedy, A

Kontopantelis, E

Little, P

Qureshi, N

Rogers, A

Treweek, S

Peacock, R

Murray, E

UCL Discovery

Addressing the evidence to practice gap for complex interventions in primary care: a systematic review of reviews protocol.

Keele Research Repository

Introduction: Getting the results of research implemented into routine healthcare is often a challenge. The disconnect between the development and implementation of evidence into practice is called the 'second translational gap' and is particularly apparent in primary care. To address this gap, we plan to identify, summarise and synthesise currently available evidence by undertaking a systematic review of reviews to: (1) explore barriers and facilitators of implementation of research evidence or complex interventions, and (2) assess the effectiveness of strategies in facilitating implementation of complex interventions in primary care. Methods and analysis: This is a protocol for a systematic review of reviews. We will search MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL and PsycINFO up until December 2013. We will check reference lists of included studies for further studies. Two authors will independently screen the titles and abstracts identified from the search; any discrepancies will be resolved by discussion and consensus. Full-text papers will be obtained and relevant reviews will be selected against inclusion criteria. Eligible reviews have to be based on predominantly primary care in developed countries and examine either factors to implementation or, the effectiveness of strategies to optimise implementation. Data from eligible reviews will be extracted using standardised data abstraction forms. For barriers and facilitators, data will be synthesised using an interpretative meta-synthesis approach. For implementation strategies, findings will be summarised and described narratively and synthesised using a framework approach. All findings will be reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Ethics and dissemination: Ethical approval is not required. The review findings will inform the work of the design and implementation of future studies and will be of interest to a wide audience including health professionals, researchers, health service or commissioning managers and policymakers. Trial registration number: Protocol registration number (PROSPERO CRD42014009410)

The University of Manchester - Institutional Repository

Addressing the evidence to practice gap for complex interventions in primary care: A systematic review of reviews protocol

https://aura.abdn.ac.uk/bitstream/2164/3323/1/Lau_2014.pdf

Addressing the evidence to practice gap for complex interventions in primary care : a systematic review of reviews protocol

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Southampton (e-Prints Soton)

Crossref

Aberdeen University Research

UCL Discovery

Keele Research Repository

The University of Manchester - Institutional Repository

The University of Manchester - Institutional Repository