Embedded Files
supporting leadership “supports employee efforts to learn more about EBP” (n = 110, 41%), “supports employee efforts to use EBP” (n = 128, 44%), and “recognizes and appreciates employee efforts” (n = 105, 40%). The average score on the EBP Implementation Scale was 12.1 (SD, 11.6; range, 0-61). The activities that were reported as being most often performed by most (60%-70%) of the respondents once or more during the previous 8-weeks of practice were “sharing evidence from a research study with patients and the families”, “using evidence to change clinical practice” and “informally discussing evidence from a research study.” Univariate logistic regression analyses showed that many of the factors were associated with the outcome measure. Possible two-way interaction terms were not found to be statistically significant, and therefore not Number of professional peers in work group Working alone in profession Small to medium work group (1-10 peers) Large work group (11 peers or more) 30 207 56 (10%) (71%) (19%) CPE = Continuing Professional Education. Neher et al. J Rheum Dis Treat 2016, 2:039 ISSN: 2469-5726 • Page 4 of 8 • Table 2: Social-cognitive factors relating to the use of research evidence in clinical practice (n = 293). Means and interquartile range of scores (IQR), and frequencies and percentages of groups. Items adapted from Légaré (2014). Item Reported min-max Median IQR Personal assessment of ability to use research evidence (1-7 = Very low ability-… Estimated percentage of peers using research evidence (20% intervals) 1-5 4 3-4 Low percentage of peers (0-40%) Intermediate percentage of peers (60-80%) High percentage of peers (80-100%) n = 58 n = 165 n = 70 20% 56% 24% 0 times 1-5 times 6 times or more Shared evidence from a research study with a patient/family Collected data on a patient problem Critically appraised evidence from a research study Informally discussed evidence from a research study Read and critically appraised a clinical research study Generated a PICO question about my clinical practice Used evidence to change my clinical practice Promoted the use of EBP to my colleagues Shared an EBP fuideline with a colleague Accessed the National Guidelines Clearinghouse Shared evidence with a multidisciplinary team member Evaluated the outcomes of a practice change Used an EBP guideline or systematic review to change practice Changed practice based on patient outcome data Evaluated a care initiative by collecting patient outcome data Shared the outcome data collected with colleagues Accessed the Cochrane database of systematic reviews Shared evidence from a study/ies to more than 2 colleagues 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% EBP IMPLEMENTATION Figure 2: Responses to items on the EBP Implementation Scale shown as proportions (%) of total number of respondents per item. Responses indicate how many times in the past 8-weeks study-participants performed the item: “0 times”, “1-5 times” or “6 times or more”. Neher et al. J Rheum Dis Treat 2016, 2:039 ISSN: 2469-5726 • Page 5 of 8 • general professional experience, the number of professional peers in the work group, and the implementation leadership score did not have a significant association with the implementation of EBP (Table 3). Multiple logistic regression analysis was performed to find out which factors were associated with a higher degree of EBP implementation. This resulted in a model including three factors: more years of experience in rheumatology practice, more experience of research activities, and a higher estimation of personal ability to use research evidence in practice was associated with a higher score on the EBP
Report abuse