liu.seSearch for publications in DiVA
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Measuring the determinants of implementation behavior in multiprofessional rehabilitation
Linköping University, Department of Health, Medicine and Caring Sciences, Division of Prevention, Rehabilitation and Community Medicine. Linköping University, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences. Univ Oulu, Finland.
Univ Oulu, Finland.
Linköping University, Department of Health, Medicine and Caring Sciences, Division of Prevention, Rehabilitation and Community Medicine. Linköping University, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences.ORCID iD: 0000-0001-8612-583X
Univ Oulu, Finland; Rehabil Serv South Karel Social & Hlth Care Dist, Finland.
Show others and affiliations
2023 (English)In: European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, ISSN 1973-9087, E-ISSN 1973-9095, Vol. 59, no 4, p. 488-501Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

BACKGROUND: The Determinants of Implementation Behavior Questionnaire (DIBQ) measures facilitators or barriers of healthcare professionals implementation behaviors based on the current implementation research on practice and policy. The DIBQ covers 18 domains of the Theoretical Domains Framework and consists of 93 items. A previously tailored version (DIBQ-t) covering 10 domains and 28 items focuses on implementing best-practice low back pain care. AIM: To tailor a shortened version of DIBQ to multiprofessional rehabilitation context with cross-cultural adaptation to Finnish language. DESIGN: A two-round Delphi study. SETTING: National-level online survey. POPULATION: Purposively recruited experts in multiprofessional rehabilitation (N.=25). METHODS: Cross-cultural translation of DIBQ to Finnish was followed by a two-round Delphi survey involving diverse experts in rehabilitation (physicians, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, psychologists, nursing scientists, social scientists). In total, 25 experts in Round 1, and 21 in Round 2 evaluated the importance of DIBQ items in changing professionals implementation behavior by rating on a 5-point Likert Scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree) of including each item in the final scale. Consensus to include an item was defined as a mean score of >= 4 by >= 75% of Delphi participants. Open comments were analyzed using inductive content analysis. Items with agreement of <= 74% were either directly excluded or reconsidered and modified depending on qualitative judgements, amended with experts suggestions. After completing an analogous second-round, a comparison with DIBQ-t was performed. Lastly, the relevance of each item was indexed using content validity index on item-level (I-CVI) and scale-level (S-CVI/Ave). RESULTS: After Round 1, 17 items were included and 48 excluded by consensus whereas 28 items were reconsidered, and 20 items added for Round 2. The open comments were categorized as: 1) "modifying"; 2) "supportive"; and 3) "critical". After Round 2, consensus was reached regarding all items, to include 21 items. After comparison with DIBQ-t, the final multiprofessional DIBQ (DIBQ-mp) covers 11 TDF domains and 21 items with I-CVIs of >= 0.78 and S-CVI/Ave of 0.93. CONCLUSIONS: A Delphi study condensed a DIBQ-mp with excellent content validity for multiprofessional rehabilitation context. CLINICAL REHABILITATION IMPACT: A potential tool for evaluating determinants in implementing evidence-based multiprofessional rehabilitation interventions.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA , 2023. Vol. 59, no 4, p. 488-501
Keywords [en]
Rehabilitation; Implementation science; Delphi Technique; Surveys and questionnaires
National Category
Clinical Medicine
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-199143DOI: 10.23736/S1973-9087.23.07857-7ISI: 001087047000006PubMedID: 37486174OAI: oai:DiVA.org:liu-199143DiVA, id: diva2:1811801
Available from: 2023-11-14 Created: 2023-11-14 Last updated: 2026-05-20
In thesis
1. Implementation and costs of guideline-based biopsychosocial management of low back pain
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Implementation and costs of guideline-based biopsychosocial management of low back pain
2026 (English)Doctoral thesis, comprehensive summary (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

Background: This mixed-methods dissertation examined the implementation and costs of guideline-based biopsychosocial (BPS) management of low back pain (LBP) in Finnish occupational health primary care (OHPC). A multifaceted implementation strategy was used, combining training and booster sessions with materials, clinical champions, and outreach visits. We aimed to 1) evaluate the quality of LBP management by applying predefined criteria to physiotherapists’ documentation; 2) analyze the effects of the intervention on OHPC resource utilization and work absenteeism compared to usual care; 3) examine how capabilities, opportunities, and motivation influence the implementation of guideline-based BPS management of LBP, as perceived by occupational healthcare professionals and 4) tailor a shortened version of The Determinants of Implementation Behavior Questionnaire (DIBQ) to multiprofessional rehabilitation context and cross-culturally adapt a Finnish language version.

Methods: The cluster-randomized trial (ISRCTN11875357) included six national OHPC providers, with 27 units randomized into intervention and control arms. In the intervention arm, physiotherapists and physicians received targeted 3-to-7-day training in guideline-based BPS management in 2017 and 2018, while the control arm continued usual care.

Study I evaluated the quality of LBP care from physiotherapists’ first-visit documentation using predefined quality criteria applied to electronic patient records. In total, 98 records documented by 28 physiotherapists from intervention and controls arms were analyzed.

Study II analyzed healthcare utilization and LBP-related sick leave data collected from electronic patient records over a one-year follow-up for 232 patients in the intervention arm and 80 control arm patients. Costs were estimated using linear mixed models by multiplying unit costs (in euros) by each type of OHPC resource use including visits to physicians, physiotherapists, nurses, imaging and sick leave.

In Study III, focus group interviews (n=12) were conducted one year after the educational intervention. with physicians, physiotherapists and nurses (n=51) treating patients with LBP in occupational healthcare teams. The data were analyzed using deductive and inductive content analysis informed by the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, Behavior (COM-B) model.

In Study IV, the cross-cultural translation of English DIBQ to Finnish was followed by a two-round Delphi survey involving experts in multiprofessional rehabilitation including physicians, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, psychologists, nursing scientists, social scientists. Altogether, 25 experts participated in Round 1, and 21 in Round 2. Participants rated the importance of each DIBQ item for inclusion in the final scale on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree). Consensus to include an item was defined as a mean score of at least 4 by ≥75% of Delphi participants. Open-ended comments were analyzed inductively. Item- and scale-level content validities were assessed using the content validity index.

Results: Training in guideline-based BPS management was associated with more frequent documentation of behaviors aligned with high-quality LBP care at physiotherapists’ first visit in OHPC compared to usual care.

The multiprofessional training intervention shifted care from physician-led management toward a multiprofessional, physiotherapist-driven model without increasing total costs over 12 months (€-1908, 95% CI €-6734–2919).

Facilitators of implementation were mainly related to increased capability and motivation. Participants reported improved confidence on their own and the teams’ capabilities on treating more challenging patients in OHPC, enhanced communication skills, a broader understanding of the multidimensional nature of LBP, and a strengthened professional role. Barriers were related to opportunities at the organizational and system levels, including limited time and resources, unclear care pathways, inconsistent team agreements, and structural constraints.

In the cross-cultural adaptation process, consensus was reached after Round 2 on the inclusion of 21 items in the multiprofessional DIBQ (DIBQ-mp). The final version covers 11 Theoretical Domains Framework domains. Item-level content validity indices were at least 0.78, and the scale-level content validity index average was 0.93, indicating excellent content validity for multiprofessional rehabilitation context.

Conclusion: Although the BPS training intervention improved the quality of LBP assessment and management, influenced OHPC resource allocation, and strengthened professionals’ capabilities and motivation, implementation into routine practice remained incomplete at 12-month follow-up. Complementary implementation strategies for sustained organizational support and clear care pathways should be further developed to embed BPS management in occupational health practice. The DIBQ-mp appears to be a promising tool for evaluating implementation determinants in multiprofessional guideline-based rehabilitation interventions.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Linköping: Linköping University Electronic Press, 2026. p. 152
Series
Linköping University Medical Dissertations, ISSN 0345-0082 ; 2044
Keywords
Health services research, Implementation science, Musculoskeletal, Physiotherapy, Risk stratification, Work ability
National Category
Health Care Service and Management, Health Policy and Services and Health Economy
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-224157 (URN)10.3384/9789181185317 (DOI)9789181185300 (ISBN)9789181185317 (ISBN)
Public defence
2026-06-12, Hasselquistsalen, Building 511, Campus US, 13:00 (English)
Opponent
Supervisors
Available from: 2026-05-20 Created: 2026-05-20 Last updated: 2026-05-20Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(504 kB)105 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 504 kBChecksum SHA-512
55690be4460cc62cf731b4e59bc9e8b5b656ab03f48ad1e8c13b1b5b7fe1036070fb0e0f5b0845c228b6154aa52dbae4abad395f79301b93f840bc35b9e17b68
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Paukkunen, MaijaÖberg, BirgittaAbbott, Allan
By organisation
Division of Prevention, Rehabilitation and Community MedicineFaculty of Medicine and Health SciencesDepartment of Orthopaedics in Linköping
In the same journal
European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine
Clinical Medicine

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 106 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 118 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf