Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorLourida, I
dc.contributor.authorAbbott, RA
dc.contributor.authorRogers, M
dc.contributor.authorLang, IA
dc.contributor.authorStein, K
dc.contributor.authorKent, B
dc.contributor.authorThompson Coon, J
dc.date.accessioned2017-09-26T09:45:55Z
dc.date.available2017-09-26T09:45:55Z
dc.date.issued2017-12
dc.identifier.issn1471-2318
dc.identifier.issn1471-2318
dc.identifier.other147
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10026.1/9986
dc.description.abstract

BACKGROUND: The need to better understand implementing evidence-informed dementia care has been recognised in multiple priority-setting partnerships. The aim of this scoping review was to give an overview of the state of the evidence on implementation and dissemination of dementia care, and create a systematic evidence map. METHODS: We sought studies that addressed dissemination and implementation strategies or described barriers and facilitators to implementation across dementia stages and care settings. Twelve databases were searched from inception to October 2015 followed by forward citation and grey literature searches. Quantitative studies with a comparative research design and qualitative studies with recognised methods of data collection were included. Titles, abstracts and full texts were screened independently by two reviewers with discrepancies resolved by a third where necessary. Data extraction was performed by one reviewer and checked by a second. Strategies were mapped according to the ERIC compilation. RESULTS: Eighty-eight studies were included (30 quantitative, 34 qualitative and 24 mixed-methods studies). Approximately 60% of studies reported implementation strategies to improve practice: training and education of professionals (94%), promotion of stakeholder interrelationships (69%) and evaluative strategies (46%) were common; financial strategies were rare (15%). Nearly 70% of studies reported barriers or facilitators of care practices primarily within residential care settings. Organisational factors, including time constraints and increased workload, were recurrent barriers, whereas leadership and managerial support were often reported to promote implementation. Less is known about implementation activities in primary care and hospital settings, or the views and experiences of people with dementia and their family caregivers. CONCLUSION: This scoping review and mapping of the evidence reveals a paucity of robust evidence to inform the successful dissemination and implementation of evidence-based dementia care. Further exploration of the most appropriate methods to evaluate and report initiatives to bring about change and of the effectiveness of implementation strategies is necessary if we are to make changes in practice that improve dementia care.

dc.format.extent147-
dc.format.mediumElectronic
dc.languageen
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherSpringer Science and Business Media LLC
dc.subjectDementia care
dc.subjectImplementation
dc.subjectDissemination
dc.subjectStrategies
dc.subjectScoping review
dc.titleDissemination and implementation research in dementia care: a systematic scoping review and evidence map
dc.typejournal-article
dc.typeJournal Article
dc.typeReview
dc.typeSystematic Review
plymouth.author-urlhttps://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000405862300003&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=11bb513d99f797142bcfeffcc58ea008
plymouth.issue1
plymouth.volume17
plymouth.publication-statusPublished online
plymouth.journalBMC Geriatrics
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/s12877-017-0528-y
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Faculty of Health
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Faculty of Health/School of Nursing and Midwifery
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/REF 2021 Researchers by UoA
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/REF 2021 Researchers by UoA/UoA03 Allied Health Professions, Dentistry, Nursing and Pharmacy
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Research Groups
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Research Groups/Institute of Health and Community
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Research Groups/Plymouth Institute of Health and Care Research (PIHR)
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Users by role
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Users by role/Academics
dc.publisher.placeEngland
dcterms.dateAccepted2017-06-30
dc.identifier.eissn1471-2318
dc.rights.embargoperiodNo embargo
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1186/s12877-017-0528-y
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttp://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserved
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2017-12
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Review
plymouth.oa-locationhttps://bmcgeriatr.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12877-017-0528-y


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record


All items in PEARL are protected by copyright law.
Author manuscripts deposited to comply with open access mandates are made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the details provided on the item record or document. In the absence of an open licence (e.g. Creative Commons), permissions for further reuse of content should be sought from the publisher or author.
Theme by 
Atmire NV