The perceived barriers and facilitators to implementation of early mobilisation within a multicentre, phase 3 randomised controlled trial: A qualitative process evaluation study



      Process evaluation within clinical trials provides an assessment of the study implementation's accuracy and quality to explain causal mechanisms and highlight contextual factors associated with variation in outcomes.


      This study aimed to identify the barriers and facilitators of implementing early mobilisation (EM) within a trial.


      This is a qualitative process evaluation study within the Trial of Early Activity and Mobilisation (TEAM) phase 3 randomised controlled trial. Semistructured interviews were conducted remotely with multiprofessional clinicians (physiotherapists, medical staff, and nursing staff) involved in the delivery of the TEAM intervention at Australian hospitals participating in the TEAM study. Inductive coding was used to establish themes which were categorised into the Behaviour system involving domains of Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation (COM-B), which allowed barriers and enablers affecting EM to be identified.


      Semistructured interviews were conducted in three different states of Australia. There were 16 participants, including 10 physiotherapists, five physicians, and one nurse. The key themes that facilitated EM were mentoring, champions, additional staff, organisation of the environment, cultural changes, communication, and documented safety criteria. In contrast, the main factors that hindered EM were lack of expertise and confidence in delivering EM, heavy sedation, interdisciplinary conflicts, and perceived risks related to EM.


      A wide range of barriers and facilitators that influenced EM within the TEAM study were identified using the COM-B framework. Many of these have been previously identified in the literature; however, participation in the study was viewed positively by multidisciplinary team members.


      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Australian Critical Care
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Masterson-Algar P.
        • Burton C.R.
        • Rycroft-Malone J.
        The generation of consensus guidelines for carrying out process evaluations in rehabilitation research.
        BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018 Dec 29; 18: 180
        • Ribeiro D.C.
        • Abbott J.H.
        • Sharma S.
        • Lamb S.E.
        Process evaluation of complex interventions tested in randomised controlled trials in musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review protocol.
        BMJ Open. 2019; 9e028160
        • Limbani F.
        • Goudge J.
        • Joshi R.
        • Maar M.A.
        • Miranda J.J.
        • Oldenburg B.
        • et al.
        Process evaluation in the field: global learnings from seven implementation research hypertension projects in low-and middle-income countries.
        BMC Publ Health. 2019; 19: 953
        • Craig P.
        • Dieppe P.
        • Macintyre S.
        • Michie S.
        • Nazareth I.
        • Petticrew M.
        Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance.
        BMJ. 2008; 337: a1655
        • Moore G.F.
        • Audrey S.
        • Barker M.
        • Bond L.
        • Bonell C.
        • Hardeman W.
        • et al.
        Process evaluation of complex interventions: medical Research Council guidance.
        BMJ. 2015; 350: h1258
        • Hodgson C.
        • Needham D.
        • Haines K.
        • Bailey M.
        • Ward A.
        • Harrold M.
        • et al.
        Feasibility and inter-rater reliability of the ICU mobility Scale.
        Heart Lung. 2014 Jan-Feb; 43: 19-24
        • The TEAM Study Investigators
        Early mobilisation and recovery in mechanically ventilated patients in the ICU: a bi-national, multicentre, prospective cohort study.
        Crit Care. 2015 Feb 26; 19: 81
        • The TEAM Study Investigators
        Trial of early activity and mobilization study investigators. A binational multicenter pilot feasibility randomized controlled trial of early goal-directed mobilisation in the ICU.
        Crit Care Med. 2016 Jun; 44: 1145-1152
        • Michie S.
        • van Stralen M.M.
        • West R.
        The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions.
        Implement Sci. 2011; 6: 42
        • Fulcher B.J.
        • Nicholson A.J.
        • Linke N.J.
        • Berkovic D.
        • Hodgson C.L.
        EXCEL Study Investigators and the International ECMO Network. The perceived barriers and facilitators to implementation of ECMO services in acute hospitals.
        Intensive Care Med. 2020 Nov; 46: 2115-2117
        • McDonagh L.K.
        • Saunders J.M.
        • Cassell J.
        • Curtis T.
        • Bastaki H.
        • Hartney T.
        • et al.
        Application of the COM-B model to barriers and facilitators to chlamydia testing in general practice for young people and primary care practitioners: a systematic review.
        Implement Sci. 2018; 13: 130
        • Whittal A.
        • Störk S.
        • Riegel B.
        • Herber O.R.
        Applying the COM-B behaviour model to overcome barriers to heart failure self-care: a practical application of a conceptual framework for the development of complex interventions (ACHIEVE study).
        Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2021 Mar 1; 20: 261-267
        • Tong A.
        • Sainsbury P.
        • Craig J.
        Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups.
        Int J Qual Health Care. 2007; 19: 349-357
        • Barber E.A.
        • Everard T.
        • Holland A.E.
        • Tipping C.
        • Bradley S.J.
        • Hodgson C.L.
        Barriers and facilitators to early mobilisation in Intensive Care: a qualitative study.
        Aust Crit Care. 2015; 28: 177-183
        • Hoyer E.H.
        • Brotman D.J.
        • Chan K.S.
        • Needham D.M.
        Barriers to early mobility of hospitalised general medicine patients: survey development and results.
        Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2015; 94: 304-312
        • Harrold M.E.
        • Salisbury L.G.
        • Webb S.A.
        • Allison G.T.
        • Australia and Scotland ICU Physiotherapy Collaboration
        Early mobilisation in intensive care units in Australia and Scotland: a prospective, observational cohort study examining mobilisation practises and barriers.
        Crit Care. 2015; 19: 336
        • Paton M.
        • Lane R.
        • Hodgson C.L.
        Early mobilisation in the intensive care unit to improve long-term recovery.
        Crit Care Clin. 2018; 34: 557-571
        • Jolley S.E.
        • Regan-Baggs J.
        • Dickson R.P.
        • Hough C.L.
        Medical intensive care unit clinician attitudes and perceived barriers towards early mobilisation of critically ill patients: a cross-sectional survey study.
        BMC Anesthesiol. 2014; 14: 84
        • Capell E.L.
        • Tipping C.J.
        • Hodgson C.L.
        Barriers to implementing expert safety recommendations for early mobilisation in intensive care unit during mechanical ventilation: a prospective observational study.
        Aust Crit Care. 2019; 32: 185-190
        • Hodgson C.L.
        • Capell E.
        • Tipping C.J.
        Early mobilisation of patients in intensive care: organization, communication and safety factors that influence translation into clinical practice.
        Crit Care. 2018; 22: 77