Effectiveness of Educational Interventions to Increase Knowledge of Evidence-Based Practice Among Nurses and Physiotherapists in Primary Health Care: Protocol for a Systematic Review

Abstract

Background The implementation of evidence-based practice (EBP) in daily health care practice is strongly encouraged; it is widely recognized as a means to improve the quality and safety of health care for patients and reduce avoidable costs. Primary care nurses and physiotherapists face numerous challenges in trying to ensure that they deliver effective daily care. Broadly promoted educational interventions aim to increase the integration and implementation of EBP in their daily practice. Objective This systematic review will retrieve and evaluate publications examining the effectiveness of educational interventions to increase the integration and implementation of EBP among nurses, nurse practitioners, and physiotherapists active in primary care. Methods We will conduct a systematic review of published articles in relevant professional, scientific journals (from their start dates) and in the following electronic databases, from inception until October 31, 2020: Medline Ovid SP (from 1946), PubMed (NOT Medline[sb]; from 1996), Embase.com (from 1947), CINAHL Ebesco (from 1937), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials Wiley (from 1992), PsycINFO Ovid SP (from 1806), Web of Science Core collection (from 1900), PEDro (from 1999), the JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports (from 1998), and the Trip Database (from 1997). We will use the predefined search terms of “evidence-based practice,” “nurses,” or “physiotherapists” and combinations with other terms, such as “educational interventions.” We will also conduct a hand search of the bibliographies of all the relevant articles and a search for unpublished studies using Google Scholar, the ProQuest Dissertations and Theses dissemination, Mednar, WorldCat, OpenGrey, and Grey Literature Report. We will consider publications in English, French, German, and Portuguese. Results The electronic database searches were completed in October 2020. Retrieved articles are currently being screened, and the entire study is expected to be completed by March 2021. Conclusions This systematic review will provide specific knowledge about the effectiveness of educational interventions to increase the implementation and integration of EBP in the daily practice of nurses and physiotherapists providing primary care services. Its findings will inform us about the types and frequencies of the most successful educational interventions. Trial Registration PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42017077309; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=77309 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) DERR1-10.2196/17621

Knowledge and attitudes of Implementation Support Practitioners—Findings from a systematic integrative review

“…Considerable efforts have been made to enable attitude measurement in implementation science in order to better understand its contribution to implementation processes [ 14 – 16 ]. Knowledge on the other hand is a central construct in determinant frameworks–such as the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research [ 17 ]–and has been highlighted in numerous studies as a persistent barrier to evidence uptake and implementation including healthcare [ 18 , 19 ], social welfare [ 20 , 21 ] and education [ 22 ]. It is therefore relevant to also consider the role of these two constructs for the work of ISPs.…”

Effectiveness of Educational Interventions to Increase Skills in Evidence-Based Practice among Nurses: The EDITcare Systematic Review

“…This review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations [ 36 ], the Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) reporting proposals [ 37 ], and the methods outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions [ 38 ]. The research protocol for this systematic review has been published elsewhere [ 39 ].…”