Attitudes and Barriers to Evidence-Based Practice in Optometry Educators

Suttle, Catherine; Challinor, Kirsten L.; Thompson, Rachel; Pesudovs, Konrad; Togher, Leanne; Chiavaroli, Neville; Lee, Adrian V.; Junghans, Barbara M; Stapleton, Fiona; Watt, Kathleen; Jalbert, Isabelle

doi:10.1097/opx.0000000000000550

Cited by 17 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The focus groups were advertised under the Course Name “Breaking down barriers: What can be done to improve AMD care?” Participants received appropriate monetary compensation and light refreshments. One of two optometrists with public health training and experience in qualitative research (DR, Dr Nina Tahhan) co-facilitated the focus groups alongside an experienced optometrist, educator, and qualitative researcher (IJ) [16, 17]. The focus groups specifically aimed to identify and describe the possible reasons for under or over detection and inappropriate AMD management.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The nominal group technique is a qualitative method of data collection that enables a group to generate and prioritise a large number of issues using a structure that gives everyone an equal voice [22]. It has been used in varying health contexts to generate ideas and allow groups to reach consensus on barriers and facilitators to health practices [23, 24] and was used for this research as previously described [17]. Briefly, participants in all focus groups were given an individual card and asked to record silently their responses to the question “From your perspective, what are some of the factors preventing people at risk of or with AMD from accessing and/or receiving good care and/or from following advice given to them?” In a subset of three focus groups (Gold Coast, Melbourne, Toowoomba), participants were also asked to record responses to the following second question “In your opinion, what more could be done to help people at risk of or with AMD to access and/or receive good care and/or to follow advice given to them?” Seating in the rooms in which the focus groups were held was configured in a U-shape.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A qualitative exploration of eyecare professional perspectives on Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD) care

Jalbert

Rahardjo²,

Yashadhana³

et al. 2018

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

18Despite the existence of evidence-based recommendations to decrease risk and progression of Age-19 Related Macular Degeneration (AMD) for some time, self-reported practices suggest that eyecare 20 professionals' advice and people with AMD's adherence to these recommendations can be very 21 poor. This study uses qualitative methods to explore Australian eyecare professionals' perspective 22 34Factors impacting AMD care identified through analysis of the transcripts were coded to three 35 categories of influence: patient-centered, practitioner-centered, and structural factors. Eyecare 36 professionals considered poor care pathways, people with AMD's poor disease understanding / 37 denial, and cost of care / lack of funding, as the most significant barriers to AMD care; they 38 considered shared care model, access, and communication as the most significant enablers to good 39 AMD care. These findings suggest that Australian eyecare professionals perceive that there is a need 40 for improved patient support systems and appropriately funded, clearer care pathway to benefit 41 people with AMD.3 42 65 although no consistent pattern could be detected [9]. Comparative data on Australian 66 ophthalmologists was unfortunately not collected.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A qualitative exploration of eyecare professional perspectives on Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD) care

Jalbert

Rahardjo²,

Yashadhana³

et al. 2018

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Participants received appropriate monetary compensation and light refreshments. One of two optometrists with public health training and experience in qualitative research (DR, Dr Nina Tahhan) co-facilitated the focus groups alongside an experienced optometrist, educator, and qualitative researcher (IJ) [20,21]. The focus groups opened with a brief (5 minutes) presentation by the expert facilitator, summarising the current evidence-based classification, established risk factors, and management recommendations for AMD care.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Previous research has identified key barriers to the delivery of best practice eyecare. These include lack of time, lack of knowledge or skills, poor access to evidence, and inefficient care pathways [20][21][22][23]. In the setting of AMD, barriers such as poor awareness, professional development, socioeconomic disadvantage, cost, workforce supply, compliance and adherence issues have been postulated to exist [6,24].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A qualitative exploration of Australian eyecare professional perspectives on Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD) care

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the existence of evidence-based recommendations to decrease risk and progression of Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD) for some time, self-reported practices suggest that eyecare professionals' advice and people with AMD's adherence to these recommendations can be very poor. This study uses qualitative methods to explore Australian eyecare professionals' perspective on barriers to effective AMD care. Seven focus groups involving 65 optometrists were conducted by an experienced facilitator. A nominal group technique was used to identify, prioritize and semi-quantify barriers and enablers to AMD care. Participants individually ranked their perceived top five barriers and enablers with the most important granted a score of 5 and the least important a score of 1. For each barrier or enabler, the number of votes it received and its total score were recorded. Barriers and enablers selected by at least one participant in their top 5 were then qualitatively analysed, grouped using thematic analysis and total score calculated for each consolidated barrier or enabler. In-depth individual interviews were conducted with 10 ophthalmologists and 2 optometrists. Contributions were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed with NVivo software. One hundred and sixty-nine barriers and 51 enablers to AMD care were identified in the focus groups. Of these, 102 barriers and 42 enablers were selected as one of their top 5 by at least one participant and further consolidated into 16 barriers and 10 enablers after thematic analysis. Factors impacting AMD care identified through analysis of the transcripts were coded to three categories of influence: patient-centered, practitionercentered, and structural factors. Eyecare professionals considered poor care pathways, people with AMD's poor disease understanding / denial, and cost of care / lack of funding, as the most significant barriers to AMD care; they considered shared care model, access, and communication as the most significant enablers to good AMD care. These findings suggest that Australian eyecare professionals perceive that there is a need for improved patient support systems and appropriately funded, clearer care pathway to benefit people with AMD.

show abstract

Evidence‐based practice attitudes and nutrition support guideline knowledge between holders and nonholders of the Certified Nutrition Support Clinician credential

Steiner,

Sackey,

Cohen

et al. 2024

Nut in Clin Prac

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundClinical practice frequently changes, and professionals should stay abreast of evidence‐based practice (EBP) guidelines. Negative attitudes towards EBP are a barrier to guideline adoption. This study explored EBP attitudes and knowledge of a complex nutrition support clinical case scenario of individuals holding or not holding the Certified Nutrition Support Clinician (CNSC) credential.MethodsThis cross‐sectional study used an online survey sent to American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN) members with and without the CNSC credential and all CNSC credential holders from the National Board of Nutrition Support Certification email list. The survey included the Evidence‐Based Practice Attitude Scale Score (EBPAS‐15) and eight knowledge questions using a nutrition support case scenario. An independent samples t test compared knowledge and EBPAS‐15 total scores and subscores between CNSC holders and nonholders. Pearson correlation determined the correlation between knowledge and EBPAS‐15 scores.ResultsThe response rate was 7.8% (N = 706). CNSC holders (n = 536) had significantly higher mean knowledge scores (4.7 ± 1.6 out of 8) than nonholders (n = 159, 4.1 ± 1.7) (P < 0.001). Total EBPAS‐15 scores were not significantly different between CNSC holders (n = 542, 2.9 ± 0.4 out of 4) and nonholders (n = 164, 2.8 ± 0.7) (P = 0.434), and knowledge scores and total EBPAS‐15 scores (P = 0.639) or subscores were not significantly correlated.ConclusionsRegardless of holding the CNSC credential, EBPAS‐15 scores indicated respondents had positive EBP attitudes. CNSC holders had significantly higher knowledge scores of recent nutrition support EBP guidelines compared with non–CNSC credential holders. Positive EBP attitudes are a precursor to clinical decision‐making, but future research should determine the use of guidelines in clinical practice.

show abstract

Attitudes and Barriers to Evidence-Based Practice in Optometry Educators

Cited by 17 publications

References 41 publications

A qualitative exploration of eyecare professional perspectives on Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD) care

A qualitative exploration of eyecare professional perspectives on Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD) care

A qualitative exploration of Australian eyecare professional perspectives on Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD) care

Evidence‐based practice attitudes and nutrition support guideline knowledge between holders and nonholders of the Certified Nutrition Support Clinician credential

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About