ArticleAdvances in medical education and practice2013
Exploring the individual determinants of evidence uptake in allied health using a journal club as a medium.
Article in Advances in medical education and practice, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeA recent trial which examined the impact of a structured model of journal club (JC) demonstrated variability in evidence-based practice (EBP) outcomes across allied health disciplines. The aim of the current study was to determine if there are individual practitioner characteristics that could explain this variability and identify potential predictors of EBP outcomes.
methodThis exploratory study used the data obtained from the JC trial. The predictive value of practitioner-related variables including academic degree, previous exposure to EBP training, and previous research involvement was analyzed using univariate logistic regression models. The dose of intervention was also included in the exploratory analysis.
resultsThe change in self-reported knowledge, evidence uptake, and attitude following participation in a JC was influenced by individual practitioner characteristics including their discipline, academic background, previous EBP training, previous research involvement, and JC attendance. Improvement in objective knowledge did not seem to be affected by any of these variables. Whether these individual characteristics have the ability to predict who will achieve less than, or greater than, 50% change in knowledge, attitude, and evidence uptake, is not known, except for academic background which predicted physiotherapists' improvement in attitude.
conclusionParticipation in a structured JC can lead to significant improvements in EBP knowledge irrespective of the characteristics of individual practitioners. The change in attitude and evidence uptake, however, may be influenced by individual characteristics which will therefore require careful consideration when designing EBP interventions. An EBP intervention is likely to be successful if a systematic assessment of the barriers at different levels (ie, individual, organizational, and contextual) informs the choice of evidence implementation strategy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.