Trial reportBMC medical education2016
Improved quality and more attractive work by applying EBM in disability evaluations: a qualitative survey.
Trial report in BMC medical education, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessment of prognosis by physicians involved in work disability evaluation: A qualitative study.PloS one · 2019Trial
- Designing an evidence-based working method for medical work disability prognosis evaluation-an intervention mapping approach.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- The perceived importance of prognostic aspects considered by physicians during work disability evaluation: a survey.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2022Article
- Differences in opinions of occupational physicians on the required competencies by field of practice: results of an international Delphi study.BMC medical education · 2018Article
- Stroke rehabilitation. A call to action in Saudi Arabia.Neurosciences (Riyadh, Saudi Arabia) · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe uptake of evidence in practice by physicians, even if they are trained in the systematic method of evidence-based medicine (EBM), remains difficult to improve. The aim of this study was to explore perceptions and experiences of physicians doing disability evaluations regarding motivators and preconditions for the implementation of EBM in daily practice.
methodsThis qualitative study was nested in a cluster randomized controlled trial (Trial registration NTR1767; 20-apr-2009) evaluating the effects of training in EBM. The 45 physicians that participated received a comprehensive 6-months training program in EBM of which the last course day included audio-recorded interviews in groups. During these interviews participating physicians discussed perceptions and experiences regarding EBM application in daily practice. In an iterative process we searched for common motivators or preconditions for the implementation of EBM.
resultsThree main concepts or themes emerged after analyzing the transcriptions of the discussions: 1) improved quality of physicians' actions, such as clients benefiting from the application of EBM; 2) improved work attractiveness of physicians; and 3) preconditions that have to be met in order to work in an evidence-based manner including professional competence, facilitating material conditions and organizational support and demands.
conclusionsPhysicians trained in EBM are motivated to use EBM because they perceive it as a factor improving the quality of their work and making their work more attractive. In addition to personal investments and gains, organizational support should further facilitate the uptake of evidence in practice.
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.