ArticleBMC health services research2022
Adherence to evidence-based practice across healthcare professionals in Germany: results from a cross-sectional, nationwide survey.
Article in BMC health services research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- The AI-Driven Healthcare Value Framework-Rethinking Traditional Care Models in the Age of Automation.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Interventions to promote critical health literacy: a scoping review.Health promotion international · 2026Article
- Attitudes and Self-Reported Use of Evidence-Based Medicine Among Physicians in Abha, Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Promoting brain health across the lifespan: Socioeconomic burden, global recommendations, and the Spanish national plan.Neuroscience applied · 2026Article
- Assessment of knowledge, attitudes, practices, and barriers to evidence-based practice (EBP) among healthcare providers at Port Said: an exploratory sequential mixed method study.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Mapping the future: The current landscape and future directions of evidence-based practice in Saudi radiology departments.PloS one · 2025Article
- Health literacy of vocational and university students in the allied health professions in Germany-a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Article
- Evidence-based intrapartum care during vaginal births: Direct observations in a tertiary care hospital in Central Sri Lanka.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Academic education of midwives in Germany (part 2): Opportunities and challenges for the further development of the profession of midwifery. Position paper of the Midwifery Science Committee (AHW) in the DACH Association for Medical Education (GMA).GMS journal for medical education · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAdherence to evidence-based practice (EBP) is considered a key competence to improve healthcare quality. In this study, we aimed to describe the EBP adherence of healthcare professionals working in Germany and to explore barriers and facilitators regarding the implementation of EBP in clinical practice.
methodsA nationwide online survey was performed among healthcare professionals in Germany from January to April 2018 using the German version of the Evidence-based Practice Inventory (EBPI) questionnaire for a comprehensive assessment of adherence to EBP. Univariate logistic regression analyses were performed to explore the association between demographic and professional determinants and each EBPI dimension.
resultsWe analysed data of 889 participants, including 318 physical therapists, 154 occupational therapists, 137 midwifes and 280 participants of six other healthcare professions. Approximately 70% of the participants generally demonstrated a positive attitude towards EBP and believed that EBP was useful in clinical practice. Broadly, 80% of the respondents evaluated themselves as being able to enact EBP behaviour in clinical practice. In contrast, less than 70% preferred to use quantitative information instead of their intuition to inform their habitual clinical behaviour. Still, 20 to 30% reported that EBP did not sufficiently account for their clinical experience and differences between patients. The strongest facilitators to EBP adherence across at least three dimensions of the EBPI were the availability of ≥ 60 min for scientific literature at work (OR: 9.67; 95% CI: 5.86; 16.30), followed by a master or higher academic degree (OR: 9.09, 95% CI: 5.86; 14.28) and the involvement in ≥ 1 scientific publication (OR: 7.06, 95% CI: 5.10; 9.85).
conclusionsThis study showed that healthcare professionals in Germany in general had a positive attitude towards EBP although they currently do not consider EBP principles in its entirety. The most important determinant positively influencing a healthcare professional's decision to perform EBP was the time available for scientific literature at work. German healthcare professionals experience similar barriers towards the implementation of EBP in clinical practice compared to other international healthcare settings. These barriers should be targeted by future research.
trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00013792). Registered 19 January 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.