Development and validation of a questionnaire to assess evidence based-practice

Capraş, Roxana-Denisa; Drugan, Tudor; Bolboacă, Sorana D.

doi:10.1109/ehb.2017.7995378

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The development of the survey and its validation were previously reported [23]. The validation of the questionnaire was carried out exclusively for Sections A and B.…”

Section: Instrumentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evidence-based medicine self-assessment, knowledge, and integration into daily practice: a survey among Romanian physicians and comparison between trainees and specialists

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: A gap between the attitude towards evidence-based medicine (EBM), knowledge and awareness has been reported among physicians from different parts of the world. However, no investigation on Romanian physicians is available in the scientific literature. Our study aimed, firstly, to assess EBM awareness and the knowledge used by Romanian physicians, and, secondly, to compare resident trainees with specialists. Methods: Romanian trainee and specialist physicians were invited to participate in this cross-sectional study. The study tool was an online questionnaire designed to explore their awareness, knowledge, usefulness, the attitude in medical documentation, and the use of professional EBM resources. Data were collected by Google Form from January 1st to April 30th, 2017, respecting the responders' anonymity. Two groups of physicians were investigated as trainees and specialists, respectively. Descriptive statistics (number, percentage, median and interquartile range) was used to describe the survey-related variables. Statistical significance on qualitative data was calculated with the Chi-square test, Fisher's exact test, or the Z-test for proportions. Results: Two hundred and 50 physicians participated in this study (68% trainees vs. 32% specialists). In both groups, a significantly high percentage was represented by women as compared to men (trainees 72.4%, specialists 70%). The correct definition of EBM was identified by most respondents (75.6%). Affirmatively, both trainees and specialists always looked at levels of evidence when reading scientific literature, but a small percentage (6.5% trainees and 3% specialists) adequately identified the uppermost types of evidence in the hierarchy. Almost a quarter of the respondents shared the name of mobile EBM resources that they used to support the daily practice. Only six out of the 49 listed mobile resources met the EBM criteria. Conclusions: The participants proved to have limited knowledge of EBM and a positive attitude towards the concept. They made use of mobile medical resources without understanding which of these were evidence-based.

show abstract

“…The development of the survey and its validation were previously reported [23]. The validation of the questionnaire was carried out exclusively for Sections A and B.…”

Section: Instrumentmentioning

confidence: 99%