Impact of deliberate practice on evidence-based medicine attitudes and behaviours of health care professionals

Cross-sectional exploratory survey among health researchers in Europe on the awareness of and barriers affecting the use of an evidence-based research approach

OBJECTIVES

This exploratory study was conducted to find out how well the concept of evidence-based research (EBR) is known among European health researchers with substantial clinical research experience, and which barriers affect the use of an EBR approach. The concept of EBR implies that researchers use evidence synthesis to justify new studies and to inform their design.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional exploratory survey study.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

The survey was conducted among European health researchers. Respondents included 205 health researchers (physicians, nurses, dentists, allied health researchers and members of other professions involved in health research) with a doctoral degree or at least 5 years of research experience.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measures were the level of awareness of the concept of EBR and the presence of barriers affecting the use of an EBR approach. Secondary outcome measures include correlations between sociodemographic characteristics (eg, profession) and awareness of EBR.

RESULTS

We discovered that 84.4% of the respondents initially indicated their awareness of the concept of EBR. Nevertheless, 22.5% of them concluded that, on reading the definition, they either do not know or do not fully comprehend the concept of EBR. The main barriers affecting the use of an EBR approach were related to organisational issues, such as not being attributed resources (30.5% of the respondents), time (24.8%) or access to implement it (14.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the limitations, this study clearly shows that ongoing initiatives are necessary to raise awareness about the importance of implementing the EBR approach in health research. This paper contributes to a discussion of the issues that obstruct the implementation of the EBR approach and potential solutions to overcome these issues, such as improving the knowledge and skills necessary to practice the EBR approach.

Adherence to evidence-based practice across healthcare professionals in Germany: results from a cross-sectional, nationwide survey

Background

Adherence to evidence-based practice (EBP) is considered a key competence to improve healthcare quality. In this study, we aimed to describe the EBP adherence of healthcare professionals working in Germany and to explore barriers and facilitators regarding the implementation of EBP in clinical practice.

Methods

A nationwide online survey was performed among healthcare professionals in Germany from January to April 2018 using the German version of the Evidence-based Practice Inventory (EBPI) questionnaire for a comprehensive assessment of adherence to EBP. Univariate logistic regression analyses were performed to explore the association between demographic and professional determinants and each EBPI dimension.

Results

We analysed data of 889 participants, including 318 physical therapists, 154 occupational therapists, 137 midwifes and 280 participants of six other healthcare professions. Approximately 70% of the participants generally demonstrated a positive attitude towards EBP and believed that EBP was useful in clinical practice. Broadly, 80% of the respondents evaluated themselves as being able to enact EBP behaviour in clinical practice. In contrast, less than 70% preferred to use quantitative information instead of their intuition to inform their habitual clinical behaviour. Still, 20 to 30% reported that EBP did not sufficiently account for their clinical experience and differences between patients.

The strongest facilitators to EBP adherence across at least three dimensions of the EBPI were the availability of ≥ 60 min for scientific literature at work (OR: 9.67; 95% CI: 5.86; 16.30), followed by a master or higher academic degree (OR: 9.09, 95% CI: 5.86; 14.28) and the involvement in ≥ 1 scientific publication (OR: 7.06, 95% CI: 5.10; 9.85).

Conclusions

This study showed that healthcare professionals in Germany in general had a positive attitude towards EBP although they currently do not consider EBP principles in its entirety. The most important determinant positively influencing a healthcare professional’s decision to perform EBP was the time available for scientific literature at work. German healthcare professionals experience similar barriers towards the implementation of EBP in clinical practice compared to other international healthcare settings. These barriers should be targeted by future research.

Trial registration

German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00013792). Registered 19 January 2018.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-08682-z.

Has anything changed in Evidence-Based Medicine?

The Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) movement, undoubtably one of the most successful movements in medicine, questions dogma and "clinical authority" and combines the "best available evidence" with clinical expertise and patient values in order to provide the best care for the individual patient. Although since its inception in the 1990s its strong theoretical foundations remain unaltered, a lot has changed in its practical implementation due to the electronic explosion of information and the unprecedented COVID-19 crisis. The purpose of this article is to succinctly provide the reader with an update on the major changes in EBM, including the important most recent ones that were "fast-tracked" due to the COVID-19 challenge.

Efficacy of active and passive evidence-based practice training for postgraduate medical residents: a non-randomized controlled trial

Objective

This study examined the effects of two evidence-based practice (EBP) educational programs for postgraduate medical residents on their attitude, behavior, knowledge, outcome, and competencies in EBP.

Results

Forty-five and thirty-five medical residents were recruited in the active and passive educational intervention groups, respectively. Among those, 39 and 30 participants were included in the final analysis. The participants of the active group received 12 h of EBP-structured presentation. The passive educational group received EBP education through their daily rounds, evidence-based journal clubs, and morning reports. Participants were evaluated with EBP-KABQ and ACE tools questionnaires. The active and passive intervention groups were not significantly different from each other at the baseline in the EBP-KABQ questionnaire and ACE tools score (p > 0.05). However, most questions in the EBP-KABQ questionnaire were significantly different from the pre-intervention measurement and the passive intervention group after the educational intervention. Educational intervention in both groups led to a significant difference in ACE tools score between groups (8.86 ± 2.62 vs. 7.31 ± 2.92, p = 0.029, in the active and passive groups, respectively). Paired t-test analysis revealed that our intervention led to a significant increase in ACE tool scores in both groups (p < 0.000, in both groups).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13104-021-05732-3.