The BARRIERS scale: Does it 'fit' the current NHS research culture?

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
The BARRIERS scale was developed in the US as a method of identifying the main barriers to research utilisation reported by nurses. However, its appropriateness for assessing such barriers in the UK is not clear. The current drive for evidence-based practice makes it desirable to assess the availability of an instrument to measure the progress of nurses who have implemented research. Information about the appropriateness of the BARRIERS scale for use in the UK would allow its potential as a monitoring instrument to be assessed. This paper is a section of a wider study aimed at producing a general picture of the underlying types of barrier to the implementation of research findings. Objectives included exploring those factors which acted as barriers to research implementation; assessing the construct validity and the internal consistency of the BARRIERS scale in the UK; and identifying barriers which might be excluded or added in future studies. A census survey of practice nurses and nurses from two hospital and two community trusts within one health authority, and one community trust from another health authority, was undertaken. The BARRIERS questionnaire was sent by mail to 4,501 nurses, with a 44.6% response rate. Exploratory factor analysis was used to identify key factors underlying the 29 items of the BARRIERS scale which acted as barriers to the utilisation of research findings. Four factors were identified, which were conceptualised as: the benefits, quality and accessibility of research, and resources for implementation. These were similar, but not identical, to factors identified in the original US study. One factor appeared mainly to be concerned with critical appraisal, which could be considered to be a facilitator rather than a barrier. More than one-fifth of the original items were not included in the UK model. Under-reported (mainly research issues) and additional barriers (mainly organisational issues) were identified. The four-factor solution was roughly comparable with that derived in the US, although fewer items were retained (22 instead of 28), and some of the factors were conceptually a little different. It was concluded that the internal reliability of the four-factor solution was fair. The scale may not be suitable for use in the UK without further development: a scale which includes positive as well as negative aspects of research culture, with a greater emphasis on organizational issues, may be more useful.