scholarly journals What are the effects of teaching Evidence-Based Health Care (EBHC) at different levels of health professions education? An updated overview of systematic reviews

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (7) ◽  
pp. e0254191
Author(s):  
Malgorzata M. Bala ◽  
Tina Poklepović Peričić ◽  
Joanna Zajac ◽  
Anke Rohwer ◽  
Jitka Klugarova ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Patient Outcomes ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Educational Interventions ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Knowledge And Skills ◽  
Overview Of Systematic Reviews ◽  
Mixed Populations ◽  
Evidence Based Health Care ◽  
Different Levels

Background Evidence-based healthcare (EBHC) knowledge and skills are recognised as core competencies of healthcare professionals worldwide, and teaching EBHC has been widely recommended as an integral part of their training. The objective of this overview of systematic reviews (SR) was to update evidence and assess the effects of various approaches for teaching evidence-based health care (EBHC) at undergraduate (UG) and postgraduate (PG) medical education (ME) level on changes in knowledge, skills, attitudes and behaviour. Methods and findings This is an update of an overview that was published in 2014. The process followed standard procedures specified for the previous version of the overview, with a modified search. Searches were conducted in Epistemonikos for SRs published from 1 January 2013 to 27 October 2020 with no language restrictions. We checked additional sources for ongoing and unpublished SRs. Eligibility criteria included: SRs which evaluated educational interventions for teaching EBHC compared to no intervention or a different strategy were eligible. Two reviewers independently selected SRs, extracted data and evaluated quality using standardised instrument (AMSTAR2). The effects of strategies to teach EBHC were synthesized using a narrative approach. Previously published version of this overview included 16 SR, while the updated search identified six additional SRs. We therefore included a total of 22 SRs (with a total of 141 primary studies) in this updated overview. The SRs evaluated different educational interventions of varying duration, frequency, and format to teach various components of EBHC at different levels of ME (UG, PG, mixed). Most SRs assessed a range of EBHC related outcomes using a variety of assessment tools. Two SRs included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) only, while 20 reviews included RCTs and various types of non-RCTs. Diversity of study designs and teaching activities as well as aggregated findings at the SR level prevented comparisons of the effects of different techniques. In general, knowledge was improved across all ME levels for interventions compared to no intervention or pre-test scores. Skills improved in UGs, but less so in PGs and were less consistent in mixed populations. There were positive changes in behaviour among UGs and PGs, but not in mixed populations, with no consistent improvement in attitudes in any of the studied groups. One SR showed improved patient outcomes (based on non-randomised studies). Main limitations included: poor quality and reporting of SRs, heterogeneity of interventions and outcome measures, and short-term follow up. Conclusions Teaching EBHC consistently improved EBHC knowledge and skills at all levels of ME and behaviour in UGs and PGs, but with no consistent improvement in attitudes towards EBHC, and little evidence of the long term influence on processes of care and patient outcomes. EBHC teaching and learning should be interactive, multifaceted, integrated into clinical practice, and should include assessments. Study registration The protocol for the original overview was developed and approved by Stellenbosch University Research Ethics Committee S12/10/262. Update of the overview Young T, Rohwer A, Volmink J, Clarke M. What are the effects of teaching evidence-based health care (EBHC)? Overview of systematic reviews. PLoS One. 2014;9(1):e86706. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0086706.

Barriers to and facilitators of health services utilisation by refugees in resettlement countries: an overview of systematic reviews

2020 ◽  
Vol 44 (1) ◽  
pp. 132 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jamuna Parajuli ◽  
Dell Horey
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Health Service ◽  
Health Services ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Health Service Utilisation ◽  
Barriers And Facilitators ◽  
Service Utilisation ◽  
Knowledge And Skills ◽  
Overview Of Systematic Reviews

Objective The aim of this study was to provide an overview of the previously reviewed research literature to identify barriers and facilitators to health service utilisation by refugees in resettlement countries. Methods An overview of systematic reviews was conducted. Seven electronic databases (Medline, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsycINFO, ProQuest Central, Scopus, EBSCO and Google Scholar) were searched for systematic reviews of barriers and facilitators to health-seeking behaviour and utilisation of health services by refugees following resettlement. The two authors independently undertook data selection, data extraction and quality assessment using a validated tool. Results Nine systematic reviews covered a range of study areas and refugee populations. Barriers to health service utilisation fell into three broad areas: (1) issues related to refugees, including refugee characteristics, sociocultural factors and the effects of previous experiences; (2) issues related to health services, including practice issues and the knowledge and skills of health professionals; and (3) issues related to the resettlement context, including policies and practical issues. Few facilitators were identified or evaluated, but these included approaches to care, health service responses and behaviours of health professionals. Conclusions Barriers to accessing health care include refugee characteristics, practice issues in health services, including the knowledge and skills of health professionals, and the resettlement context. Health services need to identify barriers to culturally sensitive care. Improvements in service delivery are needed that meet the needs of refugees. More research is needed to evaluate facilitators to improving health care accessibility for these vulnerable groups. What is known about the topic? Refugee health after resettlement is poor, yet health service use is low. What does this paper add? Barriers to accessing health services in resettlement countries are related not only to refugees, but also to issues regarding health service practices and health professionals’ knowledge and skill, as well as the context of resettlement. Few facilitators to improving refugee access to health services have been identified. What are the implications for practitioners? The barriers associated with health professionals and health services have been linked to trust building, and these need to be addressed to improve accessibility of care for refugees.

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

10.2196/17621 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (11) ◽  
pp. e17621
Author(s):  
Henk Verloo ◽  
Pauline Melly ◽  
Roger Hilfiker ◽  
Filipa Pereira
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Evidence Based Practice ◽  
Daily Practice ◽  
Educational Interventions ◽  
Care Practice ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Cochrane Central Register

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

scholarly journals Epistemonikos

2017 ◽  
Vol 105 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yamila M. El-Khayat
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Health Policy ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Nonprofit Organization ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Primary Language ◽  
Health Care Information ◽  
Web Technologies ◽  
Care Information ◽  
Evidence Based Health Care

Epistemonikos.org is a database of resources that provides evidence-based health care information in a central depository to assist people in making decisions for clinical or health policy questions. This database is provided free of charge and is put together by a nonprofit organization based out of Santiago, Chile, formed by individuals associated with different institutions. The database is updated continuously, by systematically searching different databases and by utilizing web technologies to store the information. The purpose and goal of this resource is to provide quick access to systematic reviews and broad combinations of reviews and primary studies in health care. Additionally, it is a multilingual database available in nine different languages, and titles and abstracts are translated and can easily be searched by providers whose primary language may not be English.

Evidence-based practices in geriatric mental health care: an overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

2003 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 971-990 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen J Bartels ◽  
Aricca R Dums ◽  
Thomas E Oxman ◽  
Lon S Schneider ◽  
Patricia A Areán ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Mental Health Care ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Evidence Based Practices ◽  
Geriatric Mental Health ◽  
Overview Of Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analyses

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

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henk Verloo ◽  
Pauline Melly ◽  
Roger Hilfiker ◽  
Filipa Pereira
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Evidence Based Practice ◽  
Daily Practice ◽  
Educational Interventions ◽  
Care Practice ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Cochrane Central Register

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. CLINICALTRIAL PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42017077309; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=77309 INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT DERR1-10.2196/17621

scholarly journals From Systematic Reviews to Clinical Recommendations for Evidence-Based Health Care: Validation of Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (R-AMSTAR) for Grading of Clinical Relevance

2010 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 84-91 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason Kung ◽  
Francesco Chiappelli ◽  
Olivia O Cajulis ◽  
Raisa Avezova ◽  
George Kossan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Clinical Relevance ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Research Literature ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Validation Data ◽  
Evidence Based Health Care

Research synthesis seeks to gather, examine and evaluate systematically research reports that converge toward answering a carefully crafted research question, which states the problem patient population, the intervention under consideration, and the clinical outcome of interest. The product of the process of systematically reviewing the research literature pertinent to the research question thusly stated is the “systematic review”. The objective and transparent approach of the systematic review aims to minimize bias. Most systematic reviews yield quantitative analyses of measurable data (e.g., acceptable sampling analysis, meta-analysis). Systematic reviews may also be qualitative, while adhering to accepted standards for gathering, evaluating, and reporting evidence. Systematic reviews provide highly rated recommendations for evidence-based health care; but, systematic reviews are not equally reliable and successful in minimizing bias. Several instruments are available to evaluate the quality of systematic reviews. The 'assessment of multiple systematic reviews' (AMSTAR) was derived from factor analysis of the most relevant items among them. AMSTAR consists of eleven items with good face and content validity for measuring the methodological quality of systematic reviews, has been widely accepted and utilized, and has gained in reliability, reproducibility. AMSTAR does not produce quantifiable assessments of systematic review quality and clinical relevance. In this study, we have revised the AMSTAR instrument, detracting nothing from its content and construct validity, and utilizing the very criteria employed in the development of the original tool, with the aim of yielding an instrument that can quantify the quality of systematic reviews. We present validation data of the revised AMSTAR (R-AMSTAR), and discuss its implications and application in evidence-based health care.

Post-registration interprofessional learning: a literature review and consideration of research methods

2011 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 21-32
Author(s):  
Peter Norrie ◽  
Lucy N. Thorpe ◽  
Lazar Karagic ◽  
Susan Dyson
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Research Methods ◽  
Patient Outcomes ◽  
Health Care Workers ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Interprofessional Learning ◽  
Knowledge And Skills ◽  
Published Evidence ◽  
Care Workers

This review explores the literature with regards to interprofessional learning (IPL) for qualified nurses and other health care workers. Three research studies were found. These showed that IPL can promote interprofessional trust, knowledge and skills. There is as yet no evidence that patient outcomes are changed, and taken as a whole, the evidence is not strong. There is also evidence that the providers of IPL for post-registration health care workers also tend to be the researchers. This is not ideal; it raises the possibility of the inclusion of bias and, using the values of evidence based practice, weakens the evidence. It is suggested that workers who comment on their own IPL initiatives should make explicit the measures they have taken to minimise bias. Comparison of findings from the literature is made with pre-registration IPL and a tabulated summary of much of the published evidence is included, which may be a useful source for future authors in this field.

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

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henk Verloo ◽  
Pauline Melly ◽  
Roger Hilfiker ◽  
Filipa Pereira
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Evidence Based Practice ◽  
Daily Practice ◽  
Educational Interventions ◽  
Care Practice ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Cochrane Central Register

UNSTRUCTURED 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document