Why allied health professionals use evidence-based clinical guidelines in stroke rehabilitation: A systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative studies

Abstract

Objective:

To capture qualitative research about the perspectives and reasoning of allied health professionals about variability in the use of clinical guidelines in stroke rehabilitation.

Data sources:

Ovid Medline, Psychinfo, Cochrane, Ovid Emcare, Scopus and Web of Science.

Method:

The review protocol followed the Enhancing Transparency in Reporting the Synthesis of Qualitative Research (ENTREQ) statement. Qualitative or mixed methods research that provided qualitative data about use of clinical guidelines delivered by allied health professionals in stroke rehabilitation was included. Clinical guidelines included any evidence-based documents that guided allied health stroke rehabilitation practice. All studies were screened in duplicate at title and abstract and then at full text. Included studies were appraised using the McMaster Critical Appraisal Tool.

Results:

Data from 850 allied health professionals in 22 qualitative research studies from seven different countries were analysed and synthesised. Four themes were developed including: context necessitates strategy, all clients are different, systemic changes are needed and need a good reason to change something. The findings aligned with the four arms of evidence-base practice. Allied health professionals use clinical guidelines when they align with their reasoning and match the ‘sweet spot’ for client goals and circumstance. Clinical guideline use is attributed to sufficient resourcing, time and motivation and a strong research culture within health systems.

Conclusions:

Variabilities in clinical guideline use by allied health professionals are due to their clinical reasoning, contextual factors, client characteristics and enabling health systems.