Reported use of evidence in clinical practice: a survey of rehabilitation practices in Norway

Moore, Jennifer L.; Friis, Svein; Graham, Ian D.; Gundersen, Elisabeth; Nordvik, Jan Egil

doi:10.1186/s12913-018-3193-8

Cited by 12 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although some studies have found significant associations between EBP and age [ 4 , 5 , 7 , 28 – 30 ], years of professional experience [ 4 , 25 , 31 – 33 ], working in a multidisciplinary team [ 29 ], number of people in the workplace [ 4 , 29 ], years of practice [ 7 , 25 , 32 , 33 ], and work settings [ 25 , 31 ], these variables did not show significant effects in the population of Spanish physiotherapists.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Physiotherapists’ Evidence-Based Practice profiles by HS-EBP questionnaire in Spain: A cross-sectional normative study

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) is a cost-effective approach for improving the quality of clinical care and implementing only well-tested evidence. Health professions, especially physiotherapy, must embrace EBP principles. This paper presents normative data from the Spanish physiotherapist population using the Health-Sciences Evidence-Based Practice questionnaire and explores EBP clusters/profiles of professionals in practice. An intentional sample of 419 practicing physiotherapists was recruited from the Spanish Professional Council of Physiotherapy. Participants completed a cross-sectional online survey with 60 Likert items (scale 1–10) measuring 5 dimensions: 1) Beliefs and attitudes, 2) Results from literature, 3) Professional practice, 4) Assessment of results, and 5) Barriers and Facilitators. The protocol also included sociodemographic, training, and practice-related contrast variables. Normative data were estimated and tabulated for each dimension and then a K-means clustering procedure was implemented using the contrast variables. Results for normative data showed, in descending order, the following 50th percentile values for the five EBP factors: Beliefs and attitudes (8.25), Professional practice (8.00), Assessment of results (7.42), Results from literature (6.71), and EBP Barriers and Facilitators (5.17); all expressed on a scale of 1 to 10. Academic degree, EBP training level, and work time shared in healthcare activity, research, or teaching activity were all statistically significant for discriminating EBP dimension scores. Finally, six different clusters showed that when EBP level is low, the scores in all dimensions are equally low, and vice-versa. The EBP dimensions "Beliefs and attitudes", "Professional practice", and "Evaluation of results" obtained better normative scores overall than "Search for bibliographic evidence and its inclusion in practice" and especially "Perception of EBP barriers", which had the worst score. Normative data are useful for comparing individual scores and the reference population, and information about clusters will enable appropriate global EBP intervention programs to be designed and implemented.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Physiotherapists’ Evidence-Based Practice profiles by HS-EBP questionnaire in Spain: A cross-sectional normative study

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Since CFA is preferred over EFA in the COSMIN methodology [ 31 ], only the results of CFA were rated in studies where both EFA and CFA were conducted. The quality of structural validity testing was rated as “very good” in 33 studies [ 36 – 38 , 40 , 42 – 44 , 47 , 49 , 50 , 53 , 55 , 72 , 74 , 75 , 77 , 79 – 81 , 84 , 86 , 88 , 90 , 92 , 94 , 97 – 100 , 105 , 106 , 110 ], “adequate” in 19 studies [ 39 , 45 , 48 , 51 , 52 , 57 , 58 , 60 , 62 , 69 , 76 , 89 , 91 , 95 , 108 , 109 , 111 ], “doubtful” in 9 studies [ 46 , 56 , 59 , 61 , 63 , 83 , 102 ], and as “inadequate” in two studies [ 66 , 73 ]. In both cases inadequate ratings were given due to low sample sizes [ 31 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One factor. Factor loading > 0.70, Eigenvalue = 2.25 ( +) Low − 2 RoB EBP Implement [ 56 , 58 , 60 , 61 ] EFA. Disagreement about dimensionality between four studies.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Instruments measuring evidence-based practice behavior, attitudes, and self-efficacy among healthcare professionals: a systematic review of measurement properties

Landsverk,

Olsen,

Brovold

2023

Implementation Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Evidence-based practice (EBP) is well known to most healthcare professionals. Implementing EBP in clinical practice is a complex process that can be challenging and slow. Lack of EBP knowledge, skills, attitudes, self-efficacy, and behavior can be essential barriers that should be measured using valid and reliable instruments for the population in question. Results from previous systematic reviews show that information regarding high-quality instruments that measure EBP attitudes, behavior, and self-efficacy in various healthcare disciplines need to be improved. This systematic review aimed to summarize the measurement properties of existing instruments that measure healthcare professionals’ EBP attitudes, behaviors, and self-efficacy. Methods We included studies that reported measurement properties of instruments that measure healthcare professionals’ EBP attitudes, behaviors, and self-efficacy. Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, HaPI, AMED via Ovid, and Cinahl via Ebscohost were searched in October 2020. The search was updated in December 2022. The measurement properties extracted included data on the item development process, content validity, structural validity, internal consistency, reliability, and measurement error. The quality assessment, rating of measurement properties, synthesis, and modified grading of the evidence were conducted in accordance with the COSMIN methodology for systematic reviews. Results Thirty-four instruments that measure healthcare professionals’ EBP attitudes, behaviors or self-efficacy were identified. Seventeen of the 34 were validated in two or more healthcare disciplines. Nurses were most frequently represented (n = 53). Despite the varying quality of instrument development and content validity studies, most instruments received sufficient ( +) ratings on content validity, with the quality of evidence graded as “very low” in most cases. Structural validity and internal consistency were the measurement properties most often assessed, and reliability and measurement error were most rarely assessed. The quality assessment results and overall rating of these measurement properties varied, but the quality of evidence was generally graded higher for these properties than for content validity. Conclusions Based on the summarized results, the constructs, and the population of interest, several instruments can be recommended for use in various healthcare disciplines. However, future studies should strive to use qualitative methods to further develop existing EBP instruments and involve the target population. Trial registration This review is registered in PROSPERO. CRD42020196009. Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020196009

show abstract

“…At baseline, each participant completed an adapted version of the Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) Questionnaire ( 15 ), which has been used in clinical and knowledge translation studies ( 16 – 18 ). The questionnaire has several statements for which the participant indicates their level of agreement.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implementation of an Acute Care COPD Exacerbation Patient Mobilization Tool. A Mixed-Methods Study

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Improving the mobility of hospitalized patients with an acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) is a priority of care. AECOPD-Mob is a clinical decision-making tool for physical therapists, especially those who are newly graduated or are new to caring for patients with AECOPDs in acute care settings. Although this tool has been available for several years, dissemination via publication is not sufficient to implement it in clinical practice. Objective: The primary objective of this study was to develop, implement, and evaluate different formats of AECOPD-Mob in an acute care setting. Methods: We used a mixed-methods, convergent parallel design. In addition to the paper format of AECOPD-Mob, we developed a smartphone app, a web-based learner module, and an in-service learning session. Newly graduated physical therapists (PTs) or PTs new to the practice area were recruited from urban acute care hospitals. Participants used the different formats for 3 weeks and then completed the Post-Study System Usability Questionnaire. User data were retrieved for the learning module. Participants participated in focus groups at 3 weeks and 3 months. Results: Eighteen (72% of eligible PTs, 100% female, 94% graduated within 3 yr) PTs participated. Post-Study System Usability Questionnaire scores for the learning module and smartphone indicated that participants were satisfied with these formats (median score 2.0 on 1–7 Likert Scale for both technology formats, lower scores indicating greater satisfaction). However, the participants reported in the focus group that the paper format was preferred over other formats. Concerns with the smartphone app included infection control and the perception of lack of professionalism when using a smartphone during clinical practice. The learning module and in-service were considered helpful as an introduction but not as an ongoing support. The paper format was seen as the most efficient way to access the necessary information and to facilitate communication between other members of the care team about the importance of mobility for hospitalized patients with AECOPDs. Conclusion: Newly graduated PTs strongly preferred the paper format of the AECOPD-Mob tool in the acute care setting. Future research will focus on knowledge translation strategies for other health disciplines.

show abstract

Reported use of evidence in clinical practice: a survey of rehabilitation practices in Norway

Cited by 12 publications

References 36 publications

Physiotherapists’ Evidence-Based Practice profiles by HS-EBP questionnaire in Spain: A cross-sectional normative study

Physiotherapists’ Evidence-Based Practice profiles by HS-EBP questionnaire in Spain: A cross-sectional normative study

Instruments measuring evidence-based practice behavior, attitudes, and self-efficacy among healthcare professionals: a systematic review of measurement properties

Implementation of an Acute Care COPD Exacerbation Patient Mobilization Tool. A Mixed-Methods Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About