ArticleBMC medical education2018
Efficacy of evidence-based medicine training for primary healthcare professionals: a non-randomized controlled trial.
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 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Attitudes and Self-Reported Use of Evidence-Based Medicine Among Physicians in Abha, Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Use of the Evidence-Based practice Attitude and utilization SurvEy to determine the use of evidence-based practice by chiropractic students.The Journal of chiropractic education · 2025Article
- The effect of capacity building evidence-based medicine training on its implementation among healthcare professionals in Southwest Ethiopia: a controlled quasi-experimental outcome evaluation.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2023Article
- Use of an evidence-based health portal to improve teaching and learning in primary care: a mixed methods evaluation.BMC medical education · 2021Article
- Steps towards implementing evidence-based screening in family medicine in Ukraine: SWOT-analysis of an approach of multidimensional empowerment.BMC family practice · 2021Article
- Training Family Doctors and Primary Care Nurses in Evidence-based Prevention, Screening and Management of Cardiovascular Risks in Western Ukraine: A Longitudinal Study.Zdravstveno varstvo · 2020Article
- Effects of a quasi-experimental study of using flipped classroom approach to teach evidence-based medicine to medical technology students.BMC medical education · 2020Article
- Efficiency and effectiveness of concise evidence-based medicine training program at a tertiary healthcare institute - Exploring the impact on research output of faculty.Perspectives in clinical researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe impact of evidence-based medicine (EBM) training techniques in primary healthcare professionals remains to be determined.
methodsA non-randomized controlled trial (NRCT) was performed aiming to assess the two methods of evidence-based medicine training for primary healthcare professionals by assessing evidence based practice (EBP) related knowledge (EBP-K), attitude (EBP-A), personal application (EBP-P), anticipated future use (EBP-F), and community management of hypertension. Participants were recruited and assigned to either an EBM training group that receiving a weekly face-to-face EBM training course, or an EBM self-instruction course for eight weeks. A validated instrument was applied to evaluate the four aspects of EBP. Additionally, community management of hypertension was assessed by comparing the the rate of detection, blood pressure control, standard management, grading management and patient satisfaction between 2015 and 2016 to measure training efficacy. The difference between the impact of these two interventions was assessed statistically.
resultsOne hundred fifty-one participants (69 in the face-to-face EBM training group and 82 in the self-instruction group) were included. Compared to self-instruction, the face-to-face EBM training was associated with significantly improved EBP-Knowledge (26.14 ± 4.22 vs. 22.44 ± 4.47, P < 0.05), EBP-Personal application (22.52 ± 6.18 vs. 16.89 ± 5.99, P < 0.05), and EBP-Future use (44.04 ± 8.97 vs. 37.71 ± 8.39, P < 0.05). EBP-Attitude scores (10.89 ± 4.52 vs.14.93 ± 5.92, P < 0.000) were lower in the EBM training group. Stratified analyses showed that the results were consistent regardless of the participants' gender, professional role (doctors & apothecaries or nurses), rank (junior or senior doctors & apothecaries), or specialty (Traditional Chinese or Western Medicine). Assessment of community hypertension management revealed that the rate of blood pressure control, standardized hypertension management and patient satisfaction was significantly better in group A than group B (1.14% vs.0.69, 2.85% vs.1.68 and 2.41% vs.0.84%).
conclusionsA face-to-face EBM training course improved primary healthcare professionals' EBP knowledge, attitudes, personal application, and anticipated future use. Effective EBM training may improve the efficacy of primary health care services.
trial registrationNon-Randomized Controlled Trial ChiCTR1800017498 , August 1, 2018.
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.