ArticleAdvances in medical education and practice2018
Research utilization barriers for emergency medical technicians in Saudi Arabia.
Article in Advances in medical education and practice, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
introductionTranslation of research findings into clinical practice has potential to improve health care procedures, increase patient safety, and improve patient outcomes. However, low levels of evidence utilization in clinical practice have been widely reported. Anecdotal evidence suggests that this is also the case for emergency medical technicians (EMTs) in Saudi Arabia. This study aimed to examine the barriers to the utilization of research findings within this cohort.
methodsThe BARRIERS scale was used to gather data from a convenience sample of EMTs in Saudi Arabia.
resultsThe barriers most commonly rated as "great" or "moderate" were "Implications for practice are not made clear", "The relevant literature is not compiled in one place", and "The EMT feels the benefits of changing practice will be minimal". However, when responses were examined at a subscale level, reliability, as measured by Cronbach's α, was suboptimal (range 0.20-0.62). DISCUSSION: No similar study has been conducted within paramedicine to enable direct comparison of our results; however, the top barriers identified in the present study are also highly rated in some previous studies of nurse cohorts. The low reliability measures of the subscales may demonstrate the importance of context specificity when utilizing this scale and that further research is required to develop a reliable and valid tool for use within this cohort.
conclusionThe top 2 barriers identified indicate that there may be a need for improvement regarding communication of research evidence to Saudi EMTs. For future studies, translation of the BARRIERS scale may be useful. However, as these EMT courses are taught in English, careful consideration of cultural suitability and more subtle interpretation issues could also be appropriate. Once context-specific barriers are identified and examined, they may inform the development of effective strategies to increase the uptake of research evidence into Saudi EMT 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.