ArticlePloS one2022
Community pharmacists' attitudes toward practice-based research and their perceived utilization of scientific evidence.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Enhancing Evidence-Based Pharmacy by Comparing the Quality of Web-Based Information Sources to the EVInews Database: Randomized Controlled Trial With German Community Pharmacists.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Trial
- An online cross-sectional survey of community pharmacists to assess information needs for evidence-based self-medication counselling.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2023Article
- Factors influencing French community pharmacists' willingness to participate in research projects: a mixed method study.BMC primary care · 2023Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEnhancing the contribution of practicing pharmacists into scientific evidence via practice-based research (PBR) is crucial in maintaining high-quality clinical practice and healthcare delivery. Involving community pharmacists in PBR can potentially can also help break barriers to the utilization of the current best evidence in everyday pharmacy practice. The impact of pharmacists' attitude towards PBR on their utilization of current best evidence in pharmacy practice is understudied.
objectivesThe aim of the study was to investigate the impact of community pharmacists' attitudes toward PBR on their utilization of current best evidence, barriers for conducting PBR in clinical practice were also investigated.
methodsIn this cross-sectional study, 169 community pharmacists working across Jordan filled a questionnaire to assess their attitudes towards PBR, barriers to PBR, and their utilization of the current best evidence in clinical practice.
resultsPharmacists in this study showed a positive attitude toward PBR (attitude mean score >3.5). A positive attitude towards PBR was associated with high utilization of the best current scientific evidence. We also investigated several barriers to PBR and their association with utilization those included; the lack of perceived benefits, lack of institutional support, and lack of self-engagements of community pharmacists to PBR. The lack of perceived benefit was found to be negatively associated with pharmacists' utilization of the current best scientific evidence.
conclusionIn this study, pharmacists' utilization of current best evidence was found to be significantly impacted by their attitude toward PBR. The current study findings highlight the importance of supporting, promoting, and facilitating PBR among community pharmacists which can potentially enhance their utilization of the current best evidence in their everyday pharmacy 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.