How to improve sharing and application of knowledge in care and support for people with intellectual disabilities? A systematic review

Article

Kersten, M.C.O., Taminiau, E.F., Schuurman, M.I.M., Weggeman, M.C.D.P. & Embregts, P.J.C.M. (2018). How to improve sharing and application of knowledge in care and support for people with intellectual disabilities? A systematic review. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 62(6), 496-520. In Scopus Cited 0 times.

Read more: DOI      Medialink/Full text

Abstract

 

Background: To optimise care and support for people with intellectual disabilities (ID), sharing and application of knowledge is a precondition. In healthcare in general, there is a body of knowledge on bridging the ‘know-do-gap’. However, it is not known to what extent the identified barriers and facilitators to knowledge sharing and application also hold for the care and support of people with ID, due to its specific characteristics including long-term care. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review to identify which organisational factors are enabling and/or disabling in stimulating the sharing and application of knowledge in the care and support of people with ID. Method: A systematic review was conducted using five electronic databases of relevant articles published in English between January 2000 and December 2015. During each phase of selection and analysis a minimum of two independent reviewers assessed all articles according to PRISMA guidelines. Results: In total 2,256 articles were retrieved, of which 19 articles met our inclusion criteria. All organisational factors retrieved from these articles were categorised into three main clusters: (1) characteristics of the intervention (factors related to the tools and processes by which the method was implemented); (2) factors related to people (both at an individual and group level); and, (3) factors related to the organisational context (both material factors (office arrangements and ICT system, resources, time and organisation) and immaterial factors (training, staff, size of team)). Conclusion: Overall analyses of the retrieved factors suggest that they are related to each other through the preconditional role of management (i.e., practice leadership) and the key role of professionals (i.e. (in)ability to fulfill new roles).