Nina M Kaper1, Maartje H J Swennen2, Arjen J van Wijk3, Cor J Kalkman4, Nanda van Rheenen2, Yolanda van der Graaf2, Geert J M G van der Heijden5. 1. Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Brain Center Rudolf Magnus, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands. Electronic address: ENT-research@umcutrecht.nl. 2. Department of Epidemiology, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Universiteitsweg 100, Huispost nr. STR 6.131, P.O. Box 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Social Dentistry, Academic Centre for Dentistry (ACTA), University of Amsterdam and VU University Amsterdam, Gustav Mahler Laan 3004, 1081 LA, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 4. Division of Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine, Department of Anaesthesia, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, P.O. Box 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Epidemiology, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Universiteitsweg 100, Huispost nr. STR 6.131, P.O. Box 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands; Department of Social Dentistry, Academic Centre for Dentistry (ACTA), University of Amsterdam and VU University Amsterdam, Gustav Mahler Laan 3004, 1081 LA, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To design and validate a practical questionnaire for clinicians, to identify barriers and facilitators for evidence-based practice (EBP), that is, the use of research evidence in patient care. The inventory is ultimately intended for departments to assess local conditions for EBP, to aim and evaluate efforts at improving or maximizing EBP. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We derived candidate items from existing EBP scales, psychology, and behavioral economics. In an online Delphi study, 537 international expert clinicians, researchers, teachers, and policymakers interested in EBP identified items with sufficient face and content validity. We piloted and validated the resulting draft inventory among 127 clinicians from various specialties and career stages. RESULTS: The Delphi study started with 114 items and resulted in a draft inventory with 29 items in five dimensions. During the pilot, the inventory was easy to complete within 15 minutes and the items showed sufficient response variation. In four of five dimensions, test-retest reliability was substantial to almost perfect and the power to discriminate between groups with different expertise was adequate, whereas internal consistency showed that the items generally measured the same construct. On the basis of internal consistency and factor analysis, we excluded three items. The final EBP inventory consists of 26 items in five dimensions: decision making, subjective norm, attitude, perceived behavior control, and intention and behavior. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The EBP inventory was developed with support of EBP experts and validated among various academic clinicians. It shows adequate face and content validity, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, discriminative power, and completion will take <15 minutes. We recommend further evaluation of its value in field trials.
OBJECTIVES: To design and validate a practical questionnaire for clinicians, to identify barriers and facilitators for evidence-based practice (EBP), that is, the use of research evidence in patient care. The inventory is ultimately intended for departments to assess local conditions for EBP, to aim and evaluate efforts at improving or maximizing EBP. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We derived candidate items from existing EBP scales, psychology, and behavioral economics. In an online Delphi study, 537 international expert clinicians, researchers, teachers, and policymakers interested in EBP identified items with sufficient face and content validity. We piloted and validated the resulting draft inventory among 127 clinicians from various specialties and career stages. RESULTS: The Delphi study started with 114 items and resulted in a draft inventory with 29 items in five dimensions. During the pilot, the inventory was easy to complete within 15 minutes and the items showed sufficient response variation. In four of five dimensions, test-retest reliability was substantial to almost perfect and the power to discriminate between groups with different expertise was adequate, whereas internal consistency showed that the items generally measured the same construct. On the basis of internal consistency and factor analysis, we excluded three items. The final EBP inventory consists of 26 items in five dimensions: decision making, subjective norm, attitude, perceived behavior control, and intention and behavior. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The EBP inventory was developed with support of EBP experts and validated among various academic clinicians. It shows adequate face and content validity, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, discriminative power, and completion will take <15 minutes. We recommend further evaluation of its value in field trials.
Authors: Juan Carlos Fernández-Domínguez; Joan Ernest de Pedro-Gómez; José Miguel Morales-Asencio; Miquel Bennasar-Veny; Pedro Sastre-Fullana; Albert Sesé-Abad Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-05-09 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Mai A Mahmoud; Sa'ad Laws; Antoun Kamel; Dabia Al Mohanadi; Ahmed Al Mohammed; Ziyad R Mahfoud Journal: BMC Med Educ Date: 2020-11-10 Impact factor: 2.463
Authors: Mallory Kennedy; Eric G Carbone; Alexa L Siegfried; Deborah Backman; John D Henson; Jackie Sheridan; Michael B Meit; Erin V Thomas Journal: J Public Health Manag Pract Date: 2020 Sep/Oct
Authors: Juan Carlos Fernández-Domínguez; Isabel Escobio-Prieto; Albert Sesé-Abad; Rafael Jiménez-López; Natalia Romero-Franco; Ángel Oliva-Pascual-Vaca Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-11-15 Impact factor: 3.390