Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31296212›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2019

Methods for teaching evidence-based practice: a scoping review.

Camilla Marie Larsen, Anne Seneca Terkelsen, Anne-Marie Fiala Carlsen, Hanne Kaae Kristensen

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Knowledge in Motion: A Comprehensive Review of Evidence-Based Human Kinetics.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Review
  20. How Well Prepared Are Dental Students and New Graduates in Pakistan-A Cross-Sectional National Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
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

4 authors.

Camilla Marie LarsenHealth Sciences Research Centre, UCL University College, Niels Bohrs Allé 1, 5230, Odense M, Denmark. cmla2@ucl.dk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4691-3609
Anne Seneca TerkelsenHealth Sciences Research Centre, UCL University College, Niels Bohrs Allé 1, 5230, Odense M, Denmark.
Anne-Marie Fiala CarlsenResearch Service, UCL Library, UCL University College, Niels Bohrs Allé 1, 5230, Odense M, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6912-1546
Hanne Kaae KristensenHealth Sciences Research Centre, UCL University College, Niels Bohrs Allé 1, 5230, Odense M, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9596-5571

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis scoping review aims to gather and map inspiration, ideas and recommendations for teaching evidence-based practice across Professional Bachelor Degree healthcare programmes by mapping literature describing evidence-based practice teaching methods for undergraduate healthcare students including the steps suggested by the Sicily Statement.

methodsA computer-assisted literature search using PubMed, Cinahl, PsycINFO, and OpenGrey covering health, education and grey literature was performed. Literature published before 2010 was excluded. Students should be attending either a Professional Bachelor's degree or a Bachelor's degree programme. Full-text articles were screened by pairs of reviewers and data extracted regarding: study characteristics and key methods of teaching evidence-based practice. Study characteristics were described narratively. Thematic analysis identified key methods for teaching evidence-based practice, while full-text revisions identified the use of the Sicily Statement's five steps and context.

resultsThe database search identified 2220 records. One hundred ninety-two records were eligible for full-text assessment and 81 studies were included. Studies were conducted from 2010 to 2018. Approximately half of the studies were undertaken in the USA. Study designs were primarily qualitative and participants mainly nursing students. Seven key methods for teaching evidence-based practice were identified. Research courses and workshops, Collaboration with clinical practice and IT technology were the key methods most frequently identified. Journal clubs and Embedded librarians were referred to the least. The majority of the methods included 2-4 of the Sicily Statement's five steps, while few methods referred to all five steps.

conclusionsThis scoping review has provided an extensive overview of literature describing methods for teaching EBP regarding undergraduate healthcare students. The two key methods Research courses and workshops and Collaboration with clinical practice are advantageous methods for teaching undergraduate healthcare students evidence-based practice; incorporating many of the Sicily Statement's five steps. Unlike the Research courses and workshop methods, the last step of evaluation is carried out partly or entirely in a clinical context. Journal clubs and Embedded librarians should be further investigated as methods to reinforce existing methods of teaching. Future research should focus on methods for teaching EBP that incorporate as many of the five steps of teaching and conducting EBP as possible.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceCurriculumEvidence-Based PracticeFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansMaleStudents, NursingEvidence-based practiceTeaching methodsThe Sicily statementUndergraduate healthcare students

Identifiers

PMID31296212
PMCPMC6624945

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.