ArticleEuropean journal of midwifery2022
Knowledge, attitudes and use of evidence-based practice among midwives in Belgium: A cross-sectional survey.
Article in European journal of midwifery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Uptake of evidence-based practice and its predictors among nurses in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Pooled it
- Dynamic birth position, awareness and practice by midwives in Ethiopia: a parallel mixed-methods study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- Clinical nurses' evidence-based healthcare competence and associated factors: a regional cross-sectional study.BMC nursing · 2025Article
- Exploring Professional Practice Environments and Organisational Context Factors Affecting Nurses' Adoption of Evidence-Based Practice: A Scoping Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Key Maternity Care Stakeholders' Views on Midwives' Professional Autonomy.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
introductionEvidence-based practice (EBP) leads to improved health outcomes and reduces variability in the quality of care. However, literature on the knowledge, attitudes and use of EBP among midwives is scarce internationally and in Belgium.
methodsA cross-sectional study using an online semi-structured questionnaire explored practice, attitudes and barriers on EBP and clinical practice guidelines. Midwives (n=251) working in university and non-university hospitals, primary care, and midwifery education, in Flanders (Belgium) were included.
resultsMidwives with a Master's degree (57.7% vs 37.8%; p=0.004), ≤15 years since graduation (50.8% vs 35.5%; p=0.015) and aged <40 years (49.7% vs 34.6%; p=0.02), had better knowledge of the EBP-definition. The majority searched for literature (80.1%), mainly evidence-based (EB) clinical practice guidelines (50.6%), randomized controlled trials (45.0%) and systematic reviews (43.0%). Midwives found EBP necessary and realistic to apply in daily practice and support decision-making. They were willing to improve EBP-knowledge and skills but assumed to be competent in providing evidence-based care. Most respondents were convinced of the importance of EB clinical practice guidelines but did not believe guidelines facilitated their practices or enabled them to consider patient preferences adequately. Half of the midwives (55.8%) experienced barriers to EB clinical practice guideline use, mainly lack of time (35.9%), access (19.5%), and support (17.9%).
conclusionsAlthough midwives showed a positive attitude towards EBP, education programs to promote EBP and improve EBP-related knowledge and skills are needed. Future efforts should focus on developing strategies for overcoming barriers and enhancing the consistency of EBP implementation.
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.