BackgroundTheoretical domains framework (TDF) provides an integrative model for assessing barriers to behavioral changes in order to suggest interventions for improvement in behavior and ultimately outcomes. However, there are other tools that are used to assess barriers.ObjectiveThe objective of this study is to determine the degree of concordance between domains and constructs identified in two versions of the TDF including original (2005) and refined version (2012) and independent studies of other tools.MethodsWe searched six databases for articles that studied barriers to health-related behavior changes of health care professionals or the general public. We reviewed quantitative papers published in English which included their questionnaires in the article. A table including the TDF domains of both original and refined versions and related constructs was developed to serve as a reference to describe the barriers assessed in the independent studies; descriptive statistics were used to express the results.ResultsOut of 552 papers retrieved, 50 were eligible to review. The barrier domains explored in these articles belonged to two to eleven domains of the refined TDF. Eighteen articles (36%) used constructs outside of the refined version. The spectrum of barrier constructs of the original TDF was broader and could meet the domains studied in 48 studies (96%). Barriers in domains of “environmental context and resources”, “beliefs about consequences”, and “social influences” were the most frequently explored in 42 (84%), 37 (74%), and 33 (66%) of the 50 articles, respectively.ConclusionBoth refined and original TDFs cataloged barriers measured by the other studies that did not use TDF as their framework. However, the original version of TDF explored a broader spectrum of barriers than the refined version. From this perspective, the original version of the TDF seems to be a more comprehensive tool for assessing barriers in practice.

No abstract

Introduction: Adherence to Clinical Practice Guidelines for sepsis can improve care processes and outcomes; however, sepsis guideline adherence is plagued by many barriers. The purpose of this article is to report the perceived barriers for implementing a sepsis guideline at British Columbia's Children Hospital. Methods: This is a mixed method study. Data were collected from clinicians using a questionnaire that covered 3 major domains and included two open-ended questions. Quantitative data analysis focused on the Mean Overall Barrier Score (MOBS) in each category using descriptive and inferential statistical techniques. Qualitative data were analyzed thematically through deductive and inductive approaches. Results: A total of 176 clinicians participated in the study. Nurses and physicians were the largest groups of participants (52.7% and 41.2%, respectively). Nurses perceived more barriers (MOBS: 3.3; 95% CI: 3.1-3.4) compared to attending physicians (MOBS: 3.6; 95% CI: 3.3-3.8). The most frequent type of barriers reported was contextual, including environmental and guideline related barriers (MOBS: 3.1; 95% CI: 2.9-3.3), whereas the least barrier reported was lack of motivation (MOBS: 4.0; 95% CI: 3.9-4.2). Clinicians who were highly motivated and perceived less environmental barriers were more likely to use the guideline (Odds Ratio of 2.2 [p = .036] and 2.2 [p = .092], respectively). Conclusions: Motivation was the most important predictor of guideline use while contextual barriers hindered use. Therefore, motivating the clinicians and removing external barriers offers the best chance for successful guideline implementation. Furthermore, removing barriers for the use of sepsis guideline among nursing group needs more consideration.