Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30413196›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2018

Development and pilot testing of a tool to assess evidence-based practice skills among French general practitioners.

Nicolas Rousselot, Thomas Tombrey, Drissa Zongo, Evelyne Mouillet, Jean-Philippe Joseph, Bernard Gay, Louis Rachid Salmi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Nicolas RousselotDepartment of General Practice, University of Bordeaux, F-33000, Bordeaux, France. nicolas.rousselot@u-bordeaux.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3508-9629
Thomas TombreyDepartment of General Practice, University of Bordeaux, F-33000, Bordeaux, France.
Drissa ZongoISPED/Bordeaux School of Public Health, University of Bordeaux, F-33000, Bordeaux, France.
Evelyne MouilletISPED/Bordeaux School of Public Health, University of Bordeaux, F-33000, Bordeaux, France.
Jean-Philippe JosephDepartment of General Practice, University of Bordeaux, F-33000, Bordeaux, France.
Bernard GayDepartment of General Practice, University of Bordeaux, F-33000, Bordeaux, France.
Louis Rachid SalmiISPED/Bordeaux School of Public Health, University of Bordeaux, F-33000, Bordeaux, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is currently an absence of valid and relevant instruments to evaluate how Evidence-based Practice (EBP) training improves, beyond knowledge, physicians' skills. Our aim was to develop and test a tool to assess physicians' EBP skills.

methodsThe tool we developed includes four parts to assess the necessary skills for applying EBP steps: clinical question formulation; literature search; critical appraisal of literature; synthesis and decision making. We evaluated content and face validity, then tested applicability of the tool and whether external observers could reliably use it to assess acquired skills. We estimated Kappa coefficients to measure concordance between raters.

resultsTwelve general practice (GP) residents and eleven GP teachers from the University of Bordeaux, France, were asked to: formulate four clinical questions (diagnostic, prognosis, treatment, and aetiology) from a proposed clinical vignette, find articles or guidelines to answer four relevant provided questions, analyse an original article answering one of these questions, synthesize knowledge from provided synopses, and decide about the four clinical questions. Concordance between two external raters was excellent for their assessment of participants' appraisal of the significance of article results (K = 0.83), and good for assessment of the formulation of a diagnostic question (K = 0.76), PubMed/Medline (K = 0.71) or guideline (K = 0.67) search, and of appraisal of methodological validity of articles (K = 0.68).

conclusionsOur tool allows an in-depth analysis of EBP skills, thus could supplement existing instruments focused on knowledge or specific EBP step. The actual usefulness of such tools to improve care and population health remains to be evaluated.

Indexed as

Evidence-Based PracticeGeneral PractitionersClinical CompetenceEducational MeasurementFranceHumansPilot ProjectsProgram DevelopmentPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsReview Literature as TopicCritical appraisalEvidence-based practiceGeneral practiceKappa reliabilityMedical educationSkills

Identifiers

PMID30413196
PMCPMC6234795

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.