4.1 Article

Algo's Integrated Knowledge Translation Process in Homecare Services: A Cross-Sectional Correlational Study for Identifying its Level of Utilization and its Associated Characteristics

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/00084174211064495

关键词

Integrated knowledge translation; Occupational therapy; Home care services

资金

  1. Office des personnes handicapees du Quebec
  2. Reseau provincial de recherche en adaptation-readaptation (REPAR)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A cross-sectional correlational study found that nearly half of occupational therapists reached a level of utilization with Algo, but the organizational climate was unfavorable for implementation of change. Strategies targeting additional stakeholders and organizational adjustments are needed to sustain Algo's utilization.
Background. Algo is an integrated knowledge translation (IKT)-based algorithm for supporting occupational therapists (OTs) with skill mix for selecting bathing equipment. While IKT approaches are increasingly valued in implementation science, their benefits with respect to the utilization of knowledge in clinical settings are scarcely documented. Purpose. To identify Algo's level of utilization and the characteristics associated with its level of utilization. Method. A cross-sectional correlational study was conducted with OTs working in homecare services (HCS) through an online survey based on Knott and Wildavsky's classification and the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework. Findings. Almost half (48%) of the OTs surveyed (n = 125; participation rate: 16%) reached one of the seven levels of utilization. While Evidence characteristics are perceived as facilitators to its utilization, Context statements indicate an unfavorable organizational climate to the implementation of change. Implications. Strategies should target additional stakeholders (e.g., HCS managers) and organizational adjustments in HCS to sustain Algo's utilization.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据