Skip to main content
Download PDF
Download ePub

Knowledge Translation Task Force for core measures clinical practice guideline: a short report on the process and utilization

Implementation Science Communications volume 5, Article number: 43 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

As part of the 2018 Clinical Practice Guideline (CPG): A Core Set of Outcome Measures for Adults with Neurologic Conditions Undergoing Rehabilitation, a Knowledge Translation (KT) Task Force was convened. The purpose of this short report was to (1) demonstrate the potential impact of a CPG KT Task Force through a practical example of efforts to implement a CPG into neurologic physical therapy practice and (2) describe the process to convene a KT Task Force and develop products (KT Toolkit) to facilitate implementation of the CPG.

Methods

To describe the process used by the KT Task Force to develop and review a KT Toolkit for implementation of the CPG.

Results

Utilizing the Knowledge-To-Action Cycle framework, eight tools were developed as part of the KT Toolkit and are available with open access to the public. Findings indicate that the Core Outcome Measures Homepage, which houses the KT Toolkit, has had greater than 70,000 views since its publication.

Conclusions

This short report serves as an example of the efforts made to implement a CPG into physical therapy practice. The processes to facilitate KT and the tools developed can inform future implementation efforts and underscore the importance of having a KT Task Force to implement a CPG. Moving forward, KT Task Forces should be convened to implement new or revised guidelines.

Trial registration

N/A.

Peer Review reports

Background

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) contain evidence-based recommendations designed to assist practitioners and patients with health care decisions and achieve more uniform care delivery [1]. Research on the use of guideline recommendations in clinical practice highlights implementation challenges [2, 3] that should be considered. In a systematic review of the utilization of guidelines, the authors identified that clinicians did not use guideline recommendations about two-thirds of the time [4], while studies investigating methods to facilitate the adoption of guidelines have also highlighted many challenges to successful implementation, with some reporting minimal to no changes in practice after active implementation efforts [5,6,7].

Specifically in neurologic physical therapy, adoption of CPG recommendations in routine clinical practice is limited [8,9,10,11,12,13,14]. As CPG development and implementation efforts continue to grow, it is critical to understand the facilitators and barriers to using these guidelines, as well as the successes and shortcomings that occur during their implementation to maximize efforts.

The purpose of this short report was to (1) demonstrate the potential impact of a CPG Knowledge Translation (KT) Task Force through a practical example of efforts to implement a CPG into neurologic physical therapy practice and (2) describe the process to convene a KT Task Force and develop products (KT Toolkit) to facilitate implementation of the CPG.

Methods

With the planned publication of the 2018 Clinical Practice Guideline: A Core Set of Outcome Measures for Adults with Neurologic Conditions Undergoing Rehabilitation (Core Set) [9], the Academy of Neurologic Physical Therapy (ANPT) initiated a task force during the final steps of CPG development to assist with the dissemination and implementation of the Core Set. The KT Task Force for the Core Outcome Measures CPG (Task Force) commenced in 2017. In alignment with the ANPT Strategic Plan, the Task Force supported two ANPT strategic areas: (1) translating evidence into practice to ensure high-value care with input from practitioners to inform future research and (2) improving communications within ANPT and with providers of physical therapy to ensure access to education, networking, and key resources [15]. The Task Force includes a diverse volunteer group of expert physical therapists in background, geography, experience, and practice, and all members are board-certified specialists in neurologic physical therapy [16]. The timing of the Task Force allowed the team to work directly with the Core Set Guideline Development Group in the appraisal of the implementability of the Core Set. This step served as an effective way to learn the action statements as well as anticipate early implementation barriers of the Core Set. This can be seen visually by the overlap of circles at the top of Fig. 1. Figure 1 presents a visual of the workflow for the Task Force highlighting the timeline for the commencement of the group, development of the Knowledge Translation (KT) Toolkit, and synthesis and review of Task Force efforts.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Timeline of Task Force efforts highlighting key KT Toolkit development steps as well as funding and synthesis of results. Size of circles approximates level of effort of Task Force members and circle overlap emphasizes the interconnection of Task Force efforts. CPG, clinical practice guideline; KT, Knowledge Translation; CSM, Combined Sections Meeting

Full size image

Working in collaboration with the Core Set Guideline Development Group and the ANPT, the overarching goal of the Task Force was to support clinicians, educators, and organizations as each worked to implement the guidelines [9]. The Core Set recommends using six standardized outcome measures (Berg Balance Scale (BBS), Functional Gait Assessment (FGA), Activities-specific Balance Confidence Scale (ABC), 10-m walk test (10mWT), 6-min walk test (6MWT), and 5 times sit-to-stand (5TSTS)) to examine adults with neurologic disorders who have goals and the capacity to improve balance, gait, and transfers [9]. The specific goals of the Task Force were as follows: (1) to develop a KT Toolkit to assist with the implementation of the Core Set into neurologic physical therapy practice and education and (2) to assess utilization of the KT Toolkit in everyday neurologic physical therapy practice and education.

KT Toolkit development

Once the Task Force convened, a KT expert who was a member of the Task Force (WR), educated the members on KT theory and provided KT guidance throughout the project. The Core Set called for KT interventions, also known as implementation strategies, to promote the adoption of guideline recommendations [9]. To accomplish this, the Task Force developed an implementation KT Toolkit, which is defined as a “packaged grouping of multiple knowledge tools and strategies that codify explicit knowledge” [17]. The Knowledge-to-Action Cycle (KTA), a knowledge translation framework, informed the development of the KT Toolkit [18]. This framework includes the development and publication of research and seven iterative phases (applicable phases and processes of the KTA framework italicized in the text below) to implement evidence into clinical practice [18]. Additionally, a key component of the framework is the identification of barriers, which guides the selection of KT interventions [18, 19].

The first KT Toolkit task was to establish standardized protocols for the administration of each core measure as each measure has various versions available [9]. The Task Force started with the knowledge creation funnel and knowledge toolsof the KTA framework to create standardized protocols for each of the core measures [18]. Protocols were developed using the foundational resources in the Core Set, direct discussions with authors of the measures, expert opinion of the Task Force members, and by obtaining national-level feedback from stakeholders within and outside of neurologic physical therapy during a public comment period disseminated through the American Physical Therapy Association EDGE (Evidence Database to Guide Effectiveness) group and word of mouth. The final protocols were posted in an open-access format on the ANPT website allowing all stakeholders to view and download them [16]. The ANPT monitors the website’s user traffic, including the KT Toolkit and the Core Outcome Measures CPG homepage, with Google Analytics (http://www.google.com/analytics). The metrics include page views, unique page views, and exit rates (i.e., the user left the site immediately after viewing that page). Additionally, user statistics are monitored for each Synapse Education Center course which were created as part of the KT Toolkit.

After the standardized protocols were complete, the Task Force’s efforts shifted to developing additional tools to support the dissemination and implementation of the Core Set. Specifically, Task Force efforts focused on the CPG Action Statements 1–6 (Static and Dynamic Sitting and Standing Balance Assessment, Walking Balance Assessment, Balance Confidence Assessment, Walking Speed Assessment, Walking Distance Assessment, Transfer Assessment) and 8 (Use of the Core Set of Outcome Measures) of the CPG due to evidence level and recommendation strength [9]. The Task Force reviewed the KTA framework [18] again to determine strategies to adapt the identified knowledge to local context, assess barriers to knowledge use, and to select, tailor, and implement interventions to promote the use of knowledge [18]. Specific tools were prioritized to target previously published barriers (e.g., lack of knowledge and time) and facilitators (e.g., educational videos, resource sheet with information to interpret results) to outcome measurement use in allied health professions [20,21,22,23,24,25]. Additionally, before the final publication of the KT Toolkit resources, a Task Force member (WR) and Core Set Guideline Development Group member (JM) created a national stakeholder survey to formally examine the know-do gap [18] and assess barriers and facilitators to using the Core Set. Respondents provided closed and open-ended feedback on the type of tools clinicians and educators thought would be useful to facilitate the implementation of the Core Set. Survey results were compared to the KT Toolkit tools and resources in development, which affirmed the prioritization of the preliminary tools. These surveys comply with the Declaration of Helsinki standards as all respondents provided consent, and IRB approval was obtained through Sacred Heart University. Demographics of survey respondents can be found in Supplemental Table 1 and results of pre- and post-survey CPG and KT Toolkit utilization can be found in Supplemental Table 2. An in-depth discussion of survey results is beyond the scope of this short report.

Results

KT Toolkit

Table 1 specifically outlines each resource available in the KT Toolkit, including the goal of the tool, the representative phase of the KTA [18], and a description of how the tool may be utilized or implemented into a clinical or educational setting. For example, the Pocket Cards for Interpretation of Core Measure Scores are short reference guides for each measure that can “fit in your pocket.” They provide a brief overview of the standardized administration procedures and key values for interpreting the measure score. The barriers they address are (1) knowledge: decreased knowledge about how to administer the measure, (2) time: by having this short pocket reference the clinician can quickly reference the standardized protocol or the key values for interpretation of the measure, and (3) interpretation of scores: the pocket card provides value for both the clinician and patient in interpreting the measure score [22].

Table 1 Knowledge Translation (KT) Toolkit
Full size table

Additionally, the Knowledge Translation Report Card for patient education was a tool that was added as a result of the pre-survey. Stakeholders identified “Resources for patients to understand the core set” and “Collaborative decision making with patients” as somewhat helpful to implement the core set into practice. Therefore, the Task Force developed the Knowledge Translation Report Card as a tool to facilitate shared decision-making among patients and clinicians.

KT Toolkit accessibility and website traffic

The KT Toolkit is housed on the ANPT website, Core Set of Outcome Measures CPG homepage: https://www.neuropt.org/practice-resources/anpt-clinical-practice-guidelines/core-outcome-measures-cpg [16]. This open-access site allows the download of the materials free of charge. Additionally, the ANPT’s Education Center hosts the five free educational training courses designed to teach learners how to correctly administer each core measure: https://anpteducationcenter.org/ [26]. These interactive courses utilize multiple strategies such as self-assessment and video-based demonstrations to enhance learning.

Reviewing website use allowed us to monitor knowledge use. As shown in Table 2, the Core Outcome Measures CPG homepage is the top landing page (i.e., viewers go directly to that page) on the ANPT Website, behind the ANPT homepage for 2020 and 2021.

Table 2 ANPT website landing page views (viewers start directly on these pages)
Full size table

The ANPT’s Synapse Education Center website which houses the Online Courses in the KT Toolkit, reports that the Core Outcome Measures: 5TSTS and ABC course has the highest number of learners (single-users), 1,072. The Score Interpretation and Continuum Use course is next with 837 learners. This is followed by the BBS, 10mWT, and 6MWT, and FGA courses with 655, 609, and 478 learners, respectively.

Discussion

The outcomes of this KT Task Force’s efforts demonstrate how a group could facilitate the implementation of CPG recommendations. Specifically, this short report illustrates the importance of convening a KT Task Force prior to CPG release to support the implementation of a CPG and outlines the process of and materials produced for a KT Toolkit to assist in disseminating and implementing the Core Set into neurologic physical therapy. Additionally, ANPT site metrics indicate that consumers are utilizing KT Toolkit resources.

This Task Force followed recommendations by our KT expert to use theory to develop and implement the KT Toolkit [17]. Similar to the medical literature, our KT Toolkit includes various educational strategies, paper/electronic documents as well as online educational courses, to change physical therapy knowledge [17, 27, 28]. Looking specifically at the electronic resources, both the number of page views from the Core Outcome Measures CPG homepage and the number of learners enrolled in the ANPT’s Education Center courses, it is clear that users are going to and utilizing these online resources, however there is room to grow and improve.

To better understand usability of the KT Toolkit we examined other KT tools used in rehabilitation. The Rehabilitation Measures Database (RMD) is a free, web-based Knowledge Translation tool designed to support clinicians seeking information on over 200 standardized measures across multiple disciplines [29]. In 2014, the RMD reported an average of 1852 hits per day and is tracking use across multiple countries [29]. Most recently, the RMD reported from December 2022 through December 2023 that there were 1,630,887 total users and 1,542,426 new users [30]. Although views of the Core Outcome Measures CPG homepage are much lower than the RMD it is important to note a few key differences. Compared to RMD, the Core Outcome Measures CPG homepage is only for the Core Set (six measures), focuses on measures primarily used by physical therapists and assistants, and includes some environmental and implementation resources such as the Knowledge Translation Report Card which are not available on RMD. Additionally, a specific limitation of the website is that it did not allow tracking of downloads of the tools. So while we can track the number of views a page had, we cannot speak to whether information was downloaded.

As described by the KTA framework, it is important to continue to monitor knowledge use and to evaluate outcomes [18]. As part of this process, the Core Outcome Measures CPG homepage and the ANPT Synapse Center Online Courses may benefit from additional usability testing and improvements [31], however, establishing an open-access resource for clinicians and educators to obtain materials appears to be an important step toward improving the dissemination and implementation of a CPG’s findings.

Finally, while toolkits may assist the adoption of a practice, research suggests that additional components, such as facilitation and audit and feedback, may enhance the toolkit’s impact [32, 33]. This in addition to greater collaboration with informaticists, knowledge brokers [34], and implementation scientists will be vital to success of future CPGs [35] and should be strongly considered in the development of future KT Task Forces.

Conclusions

A KT Task Force to implement a new or revised CPG may facilitate the successful adoption of the guideline recommendations. This short report describes the Task Force’s processes to aid in the dissemination and implementation of the Core Set including the many Core Set resources now available through the KT Toolkit, and the utilization of the Core Set and tools through ANPT site access metrics for the associated webpages. Moving forward, KT Task Forces should be convened to facilitate the implementation of new or revised guidelines.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Clinical Practice Guidelines. 2020; https://www.nccih.nih.gov/health/providers/clinicalpractice. Accessed 7 Dec 2020.

  2. Correa VC, Lugo-Agudelo LH, Aguirre-Acevedo DC, et al. Individual, health system, and contextual barriers and facilitators for the implementation of clinical practice guidelines: a systematic metareview. Health Res Policy Syst. 2020;18(1):74.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Wang T, Tan JB, Liu XL, Zhao I. Barriers and enablers to implementing clinical practice guidelines in primary care: an overview of systematic reviews. BMJ Open. 2023;13(1):e062158.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Mickan S, Burls A, Glasziou P. Patterns of “leakage” in the utilisation of clinical guidelines: a systematic review. Postgrad Med J. 2011;87(1032):670–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Munce SEP, Graham ID, Salbach NM, et al. Perspectives of health care professionals on the facilitators and barriers to the implementation of a stroke rehabilitation guidelines cluster randomized controlled trial. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1):440.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Salbach NM, Wood-Dauphinee S, Desrosiers J, et al. Facilitated interprofessional implementation of a physical rehabilitation guideline for stroke in inpatient settings: process evaluation of a cluster randomized trial. Implement Sci. 2017;12(1):100.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Restall G, Diaz F, Wittmeier K. Why Do Clinical Practice Guidelines Get Stuck during Implementation and What Can Be Done: A Case Study in Pediatric Rehabilitation. Phys Occup Ther Pediatr. 2020;40(2):217–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Moore JL, Friis S, Graham ID, Gundersen ET, Nordvik JE. Reported use of evidence in clinical practice: a survey of rehabilitation practices in Norway. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):379.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Moore JL, Potter K, Blankshain K, Kaplan SL, O’Dwyer LC, Sullivan JE. A Core Set of Outcome Measures for Adults With Neurologic Conditions Undergoing Rehabilitation: A CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINE. J Neurol Phys Ther. 2018;42(3):174–220.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Noonan VK, Moore JL. Knowledge Translation: The Catalyst for Innovation of Neurologic Physical Therapy. J Neurol Phys Ther. 2016;40(2):67–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Colquhoun HL, Lamontagne ME, Duncan EA, Fiander M, Champagne C, Grimshaw JM. A systematic review of interventions to increase the use of standardized outcome measures by rehabilitation professionals. Clin Rehabil. 2017;31(3):299–309.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Dizon JM, Grimmer-Somers KA, Kumar S. Current evidence on evidence-based practice training in allied health: a systematic review of the literature. Int J Evidence-based Healthcare. 2012;10(4):347–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hakkennes S, Dodd K. Guideline implementation in allied health professions: a systematic review of the literature. Qual Saf Health Care. 2008;17(4):296–300.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Stander J, Grimmer K, Brink Y. Training programmes to improve evidence uptake and utilisation by physiotherapists: a systematic scoping review. BMC Med Educ. 2018;18(1):14.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Academy of Neurologic Physical Therapy Strategic Plan 2018-2022. https://www.neuropt.org/about-us/strategic-plan-2018-2020. Accessed 15 Nov 2021.

  16. Core Set of Outcome Measures for Adults with Neurologic Conditions. 2018; https://www.neuropt.org/practice-resources/anpt-clinical-practice-guidelines/core-outcome-measures-cpg. Accessed 15 Nov 2021.

  17. Yamada J, Shorkey A, Barwick M, Widger K, Stevens BJ. The effectiveness of toolkits as knowledge translation strategies for integrating evidence into clinical care: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2015;5(4):e006808.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Graham ID, Logan J, Harrison MB, et al. Lost in knowledge translation: time for a map? J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2006;26(1):13–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Michie S, Johnston M, Francis J, Hardeman W, Eccles M. From Theory to Intervention: Mapping Theoretically Derived Behavioural Determinants to Behaviour Change Techniques. Appl Psychol. 2008;57(4):660–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Jette DU, Halbert J, Iverson C, Miceli E, Shah P. Use of standardized outcome measures in physical therapist practice: perceptions and applications. Phys Ther. 2009;89(2):125–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Abrams D, Davidson M, Harrick J, Harcourt P, Zylinski M, Clancy J. Monitoring the change: current trends in outcome measure usage in physiotherapy. Manual Ther. 2006;11(1):46–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Duncan EA, Murray J. The barriers and facilitators to routine outcome measurement by allied health professionals in practice: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12:96.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Stevens JG, Beurskens AJ. Implementation of measurement instruments in physical therapist practice: development of a tailored strategy. Phys Ther. 2010;90(6):953–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Van Peppen RP, Maissan FJ, Van Genderen FR, Van Dolder R, Van Meeteren NL. Outcome measures in physiotherapy management of patients with stroke: a survey into self-reported use, and barriers to and facilitators for use. Physiotherapy Res Int. 2008;13(4):255–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Wedge FM, Braswell-Christy J, Brown CJ, Foley KT, Graham C, Shaw S. Factors influencing the use of outcome measures in physical therapy practice. Physiotherapy Theor Prac. 2012;28(2):119–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Academy of Neurologic Physical Therapy Education Center. 2017; https://anpteducationcenter.org/. Accessed 3 July 2022.

  27. Barac R, Stein S, Bruce B, Barwick M. Scoping review of toolkits as a knowledge translation strategy in health. BMC Med Inform Decision Making. 2014;14:121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Hempel S, O’Hanlon C, Lim YW, Danz M, Larkin J, Rubenstein L. Spread tools: a systematic review of components, uptake, and effectiveness of quality improvement toolkits. Implement Sci. 2019;14(1):83.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Moore JL, Raad J, Ehrlich-Jones L, Heinemann AW. Development and use of a knowledge translation tool: the rehabilitation measures database. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014;95(1):197–202.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Johnston TE, Ehrlich-Jones L, Field-Fote E, et al. EDGE to Cutting-EDGE: Advancing Implementation of Evidence on Outcome Measures and Clinical Practice Guidelines. Paper presented at: American Physical Therapy Association Combined Sections Meeting; February 16, 2024, 2024; Boston, MA.

  31. Menon A, Korner-Bitensky N, Chignell M, Straus S. Usability testing of two e-learning resources: methods to maximize potential for clinician use. J Rehabil Med. 2012;44(4):338–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Moore JL, Virva R, Henderson C, et al. Applying the Knowledge-to-Action framework to implement gait and balance assessments in inpatient stroke rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2020.

  33. Salbach NM, McDonald A, MacKay-Lyons M, et al. Experiences of physical therapists and professional leaders with implementing a toolkit to advance walking assessment poststroke: a realist evaluation. Phys Ther. 2021.

  34. Gaid D, Ahmed S, Alhasani R, Thomas A, Bussieres A. Determinants that influence knowledge brokers’ and opinion leaders’ role to close knowledge practice gaps in rehabilitation: a realist review. J Eval Clin Pract. 2021;27(4):836–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Shero ST, Ammary-Risch NJ, Lomotan EA, Mardon RE, Michaels M. Creating implementable clinical practice guidelines: the 2020 Focused Updates to the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute’s Asthma Management Guidelines. Implement Sci Commun. 2023;4(1):36.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

N/A.

Funding

Academy of Neurologic Physical Therapy. 2017–2021.

APTA: “Core Set of Outcome Measures for Adults with Neurologic Conditions: Translating Evidence into Practice.” 8/2019–6/2022.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Physical Therapy, Neurology, & Occupational Therapy, Program in Physical Therapy, Washington University, St. Louis, MO, USA

    Marghuretta D. Bland

  2. Institute for Knowledge Translation, Carmel, IN, USA

    Jennifer L. Moore

  3. Regional Center for Knowledge Translation in Rehabilitation, Sunnaas Rehabilitation Hospital, Oslo, Norway

    Jennifer L. Moore

  4. TIRR Memorial Hermann, Houston, TX, USA

    Elizabeth Anderl

  5. College of Health Sciences, Physical Therapy Program, Midwestern University, Glendale, AZ, USA

    Megan Eikenberry

  6. PT, MS, DPT, Board Certified in Neurologic Physical Therapy, Former Program Director of Neurologic Physical Therapy Residency, Rehabilitation Services, Kaiser Permanente, San Francisco, CA, USA

    Arlene McCarthy

  7. Department of Physical Therapy and Athletic Training, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA

    Geneviève N. Olivier

  8. Department of Human Performance, Division of Physical Therapy, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA

    Tracy Rice

  9. School of Health and Rehabilitation Services, Physical Therapy Division, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA

    Amelia Siles

  10. Strategic Initiatives and Professional Development, UPMC Centers for Rehab Services Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

    Hallie Zeleznik

  11. Department of Physical Therapy and Human Movement Science, Sacred Heart University, Fairfield, CT, USA

    Wendy Romney

Authors
  1. Marghuretta D. Bland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jennifer L. Moore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Elizabeth Anderl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Megan Eikenberry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Arlene McCarthy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Geneviève N. Olivier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Tracy Rice
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Amelia Siles
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Hallie Zeleznik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Wendy Romney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors (MDB, JLM, EA, ME, AM, GNO, TR, AS, HZ, and WR) contributed to the intellectual ideas, toolkit development, reviewed the analysis, assisted in writing the manuscript and have read and approved the final manuscript and revision. More specifically, WR was our KT specialist and contributed a lot to KT theory and direction of the toolkit along with JLM who was a developer of the Core Set. The analysis was spearheaded by MDB, but significant contributions to methods and interpretation of results were made by ME, JLM, TR, WR, and GNO. Development of Table 1 was created by HZ and she contributed significantly to the key examples presented in the manuscript. Additionally, MDB, JLM, EA, AS. MDB, JLM, and AM contributed to feedback and concepts related to Fig. 1. All authors discussed the concepts, interpretation and take home points of the discussion.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marghuretta D. Bland.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

These surveys comply with the Declaration of Helsinki standards as all respondents provided consent, and IRB approval was obtained through Sacred Heart University.

Consent for publication

N/A.

Competing interests

Jennifer Moore is an author of the clinical practice guideline on a core set of outcome measures for neurologic physical therapy. The other authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Portions of this work were presented during a talk at the 2021 Academy of Neurologic Physical Therapy Annual Conference, “Beyond the Score.”

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1: Supplemental Table 1.

Pre- and post-survey respondent demographics of CPG and KT Toolkit utilization.

Additional file 2: Supplemental Table 2.

Descriptive pre- and post-survey findings of CPG and KT Toolkit utilization.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bland, M.D., Moore, J.L., Anderl, E. et al. Knowledge Translation Task Force for core measures clinical practice guideline: a short report on the process and utilization. Implement Sci Commun 5, 43 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-024-00580-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-024-00580-1

Keywords

Implementation Science Communications

ISSN: 2662-2211