A knowledge broker facilitated intervention to improve the use of standardized assessment tools by physical therapists: A cluster randomized trial
Clinical Rehabilitation, ISSN: 1477-0873, Vol: 36, Issue: 2, Page: 214-229
2022
- 3Citations
- 11Usage
- 25Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations3
- Citation Indexes3
- CrossRef3
- Usage11
- Abstract Views11
- Captures25
- Readers25
- 25
Article Description
Objective: To compare two methods of knowledge broker support to improve standardized assessment use. Design: Two-site cluster randomized trial. Setting: Acute rehabilitation hospital. Participants: 18 physical therapists. Intervention: A 10-month intervention was collaboratively designed with an external knowledge broker and physical therapists to compare full and partial implementation support. The knowledge broker provided education and strategies for implementation to the fully supported group and recommended strategies to the partially supported group that they self-implemented. Measurement: Chart audit data documenting frequency of use was extracted at four timepoints. Ten focus groups were conducted to describe factors that influenced use. Focus group data were coded using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and rated as barriers and facilitators for standardized assessment use. Results: For the fully supported group, standardized assessment use at initial examination increased from 0% to 58.3% at month 2 and decreased to 17.6% and 11.8% at months 4 and 8–10. For the partially supported group, standardized assessment use increased from 0% to 46% and 50% at month 2 and 4 and decreased to 2.8% at months 8–10. For both groups, early use was seen multiple facilitators. At month 10, barriers included organizational changes that impacted intervention fit. In addition, the fully supported group didn't value the selected standardized assessment and the partially supported group lacked space. Conclusions: Knowledge broker support improved both groups standardized assessment use early on, but it was not sustained. The amount of support could not be isolated as factors that influenced use varied by groups.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85118174582&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/02692155211046460; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34694155; https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/02692155211046460; https://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/pthms_ptfac/59; https://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1062&context=pthms_ptfac; https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/02692155211046460
SAGE Publications
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know