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

Author(s):  
Eelco Draaisma ◽  
Lauren A. Maggio ◽  
Jolita Bekhof ◽  
A. Debbie C. Jaarsma ◽  
Paul L. P. Brand

Abstract Introduction Although evidence-based medicine (EBM) teaching activities may improve short-term EBM knowledge and skills, they have little long-term impact on learners’ EBM attitudes and behaviour. This study examined the effects of learning EBM through stand-alone workshops or various forms of deliberate EBM practice. Methods We assessed EBM attitudes and behaviour with the evidence based practice inventory questionnaire, in paediatric health care professionals who had only participated in a stand-alone EBM workshop (controls), participants with a completed PhD in clinical research (PhDs), those who had completed part of their paediatric residency at a department (Isala Hospital) which systematically implemented EBM in its clinical and teaching activities (former Isala residents), and a reference group of paediatric professionals currently employed at Isala’s paediatric department (current Isala participants). Results Compared to controls (n = 16), current Isala participants (n = 13) reported more positive EBM attitudes (p < 0.01), gave more priority to using EBM in decision making (p = 0.001) and reported more EBM behaviour (p = 0.007). PhDs (n = 20) gave more priority to using EBM in medical decision making (p < 0.001) and reported more EBM behaviour than controls (p = 0.016). Discussion Health care professionals exposed to deliberate practice of EBM, either in the daily routines of their department or by completing a PhD in clinical research, view EBM as more useful and are more likely to use it in decision making than their peers who only followed a standard EBM workshop. These findings support the use of deliberate practice as the basis for postgraduate EBM educational activities.

2020 ◽  
Vol 176 ◽  
pp. 1703-1712
Author(s):  
Georgy Lebedev ◽  
Eduard Fartushnyi ◽  
Igor Fartushnyi ◽  
Igor Shaderkin ◽  
Herman Klimenko ◽  
...  

1996 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 104-113 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jack Dowie

Three broad movements are seeking to change the world of medicine. The proponents of ‘evidence-based medicine’ are mainly concerned with ensuring that strategies of proven clinical effectiveness are adopted. Health economists are mainly concerned to establish that ‘cost-effectiveness’ and not ‘clinical effectiveness’ is the criterion used in determining option selection. A variety of patient support and public interest groups, including many health economists, are mainly concerned with ensuring that patient and public preferences drive clinical and policy decisions. This paper argues that decision analysis based medical decision making (DABMDM) constitutes the pre-requisite for the widespread introduction of the main principles embodied in evidence-based medicine, cost-effective medicine and preference-driven medicine; that, in the light of current modes of practice, seeking to promote these principles without a prior or simultaneous move to DABMDM is equivalent to asking the cart to move without the horse; and that in fact DABMDM subsumes and enjoins the valuable aspects of all three. Particular attention is paid to differentiating between DABMDM and EBM, by way of analysis of various expositions of EBM and examination of two recent empirical studies. EBM, as so far expounded, reflects a problem-solving attitude that results in a heavy concentration on RCTs and meta-analyses, rather than a broad decision making focus that concentrates on meeting all the requirements of a good clinical decision. The latter include: Ensuring that inferences from RCTs and meta-analyses to individual patients (or patient groups) are made explicitly; paying equally serious attention to evidence on values and costs as to clinical evidence; and accepting the inadequacy of ‘taking into account and bearing in mind’ as a way of integrating the multiple and distinct elements of a decision.


1998 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 44-49 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jack Dowie

Within ‘evidence-based medicine and health care’ the ‘number needed to treat’ (NNT) has been promoted as the most clinically useful measure of the effectiveness of interventions as established by research. Is the NNT, in either its simple or adjusted form, ‘easily understood’, ‘intuitively meaningful’, ‘clinically useful’ and likely to bring about the substantial improvements in patient care and public health envisaged by those who recommend its use? The key evidence against the NNT is the consistent format effect revealed in studies that present respondents with mathematically-equivalent statements regarding trial results. Problems of understanding aside, trying to overcome the limitations of the simple (major adverse event) NNT by adding an equivalent measure for harm (‘number needed to harm’ NNH) means the NNT loses its key claim to be a single yardstick. Integration of the NNT and NNH, and attempts to take into account the wider consequences of treatment options, can be attempted by either a ‘clinical judgement’ or an analytical route. The former means abandoning the explicit and rigorous transparency urged in evidence-based medicine. The attempt to produce an ‘adjusted’ NNT by an analytical approach has succeeded, but the procedure involves carrying out a prior decision analysis. The calculation of an adjusted NNT from that analysis is a redundant extra step, the only action necessary being comparison of the results for each option and determination of the optimal one. The adjusted NNT has no role in clinical decision-making, defined as requiring patient utilities, because the latter are measurable only on an interval scale and cannot be transformed into a ratio measure (which the adjusted NNT is implied to be). In any case, the NNT always represents the intrusion of population-based reasoning into clinical decision-making.


2004 ◽  
Vol 38 (11) ◽  
pp. 1204-1204 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kunihiko Matsui ◽  
Nobutaro Ban ◽  
Shunichi Fukuhara ◽  
Takuro Shimbo ◽  
Hiroshi Koyama ◽  
...  

Sari Pediatri ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 42
Author(s):  
Dody Firmanda

Salah satu komponen latar belakang dari tujuan dilakukannya suatu penelitian adalah relevansi penelitian tersebut terhadap kemajuan ilmu pengetahuan, membuat kebijakan (policy) klinis dalam penatalaksanaan pasien secara individu ataupun kelompok serta kebijakan kesehatan secara lebih luas dalam suatu sistem tingkat institusi penyelenggara kesehatan baik tingkat rumah sakit (standard of procedures) maupun nasional (guidelines). Pada abad 21 ini dengan semakin meningkatnya tekanan dan tuntutan, pesatnya perkembangan teknologi kedokteran/kesehatan dan semakin terbatasnya sumber dana serta perubahan globalisasi, diharapkan pengambilan keputusan yang tepat dan baik akan bergeser ke arah ‘Evidence-based decision making’. “Evidence-based Medicine (EBM)” dan “Evidence-based Health Care (EBHC)” adalah cara pendekatan untuk mengambil keputusan dalam penatalaksanaan pasien (dan atau penyelenggaraan pelayanan kesehatan) secara eksplisit dan sistematis berdasarkan bukti penelitian terakhir yang sahih (valid) dan bermanfaat. Penerapan “Evidence-based Medicine (EBM)” dan “Clinical Governance” dalam suatu sistem organisasi pelayanan kesehatan memerlukan beberapa persyaratan yakni organisastion-wide transformation, clinical leadership dan positive organizational cultures. 


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document