Facilitators and Barriers to Implementing Evidence-Based Clean Intermittent Catheterization After Radical Hysterectomy: A Mixed-Methods Study.
AI interpretation is pending for this paper.
Open original publication →What the AI sees
Not AI summarized yet.
Research significance
Pending deeper interpretation.
Source abstract
Objective: To analyze the perceived facilitators and barriers promoting and hindering the clinical application of the best evidence of clean intermittent catheterization (CIC) in patients after radical hysterectomy (RH). Methods: This study employed a convergent parallel mixed-methods design. Participants included patients undergoing CIC after RH, medical and nursing practitioners and managers in the gynecological department and outpatient clinics at a tertiary-level women's and children's hospital in Chengdu. They were included in both components separately. Interview data were managed using Nvivo 11.0 software and analyzed through directed content analysis. Quantitative data were analyzed using SPSS 29.0 statistical software. Results: A questionnaire survey was conducted among 156 healthcare providers and 300 patients. Qualitative interviews were conducted with 11 healthcare workers and 12 patients. At the evidence itself level, evidence meeting clinical needs and evidence lacking practical applicability, respectively, promoted and hindered clinical implementation of the best evidence. At the potential adopters' level, healthcare professionals' insufficient professional competence, low willingness to promote implementation, numerous concerns, and lack of autonomy and awareness regarding the importance of the task were significant barriers, but they maintained an overall positive attitude toward the application. At the practical environment level, patient-related perceived barriers predominantly hindered evidence implementation. Additionally, a supportive practice atmosphere, economic feasibility, and talent development opportunities served as key facilitators. However, existing nursing practice content and workflows directly impacted evidence adoption. Conclusions: The promotion and barriers to the clinical application of the best evidence for CIC in RH postoperative patients are multifaceted. Targeted intervention strategies must be developed to facilitate the effective translation of evidence into clinical practice.