From Valuing Research to Implementing Evidence-Based Practices: Perceptions of Research Value, Confidence, and Barriers Among Aging Service Providers
Aryn Lee, Jerad Moxley, Jenna Gladfelter, Allison Nickerson, Elaine Wethington, Valeria Ramos Prado, Patricia Kim, M Carrington ReidAbstract
Background and Objectives
With the older adult population expected to nearly double globally, demand for evidence-based practices addressing older adults' health and social needs continues to grow. Yet little is known about aging service providers' perceptions of research and the factors shaping providers' capacity and motivation to implement evidence-based practices. This study used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to examine providers' research perceptions within a New York-based network of Area Agencies on Aging.
Research Design and Methods
A cross-sectional survey was administered to providers via REDCap (December 2023–May 2024). Respondents (N=172) completed a questionnaire. Principal component analysis with parallel analysis identified three factors representing providers’ engagement with research: Research Barriers, Perceived Research Value, and Research Confidence. Rank-based regression models identified predictors of each factor.
Results
Perceived Research Value (M=4.38, SD=0.56) was high, Research Confidence moderate (M=3.76, SD=0.73); Research Barriers near the midpoint (M=3.10, SD=0.63). Only the Research Confidence model was significant: multiracial providers scored lower than White providers, while executives higher than caseworkers.
Discussion and Implications
Although providers broadly endorsed the value of research, confidence in applying findings differed by professional role, suggesting capacity, rather than motivation, may be the primary implementation challenge in the aging services. A small subgroup difference by race was also observed but should be interpreted cautiously given limited sample size. From a CFIR perspective, closing this gap requires multilevel strategies targeting the Inner Setting (e.g., protected learning time, accessible research summaries, role-specific training) and provider self-efficacy.