Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38046788›Full record

ArticleBritish paramedic journal2023

Ambulance clinicians implementing evidence-based practice: mind the gap! Attitudes, perceptions and experiences of student paramedics.

Jon Newton, Andrew D A C Smith

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in British paramedic journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Jon NewtonUniversity of the West of England ORCID iD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5407-0694.
Andrew D A C SmithUniversity of the West of England ORCID iD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5452-9901.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Evidence-based practice (EBP) represents the conscientious and judicious use of the best contemporaneous evidence in partnership with patient values and clinical expertise to guide healthcare professionals. As a result, EBP is a recommended component of undergraduate education and considered fundamental for improving patient outcomes. EBP principles have thus become deeply rooted in higher education curricula, but only in recent years has this begun to permeate the world of paramedic practice. Despite this paradigm, the impact of EBP may be limited because ambulance clinicians may struggle with implementation, as a variety of barriers influence translation and application. Methods: A survey study aimed to gain insight into the epistemological and metacognitive barriers impacting student experience in order to help improve teaching and learning practices. Results: A sample of 64 students, across two different undergraduate paramedic science programmes, were recruited. Of these, 70% of BSc (Hons) students versus 33% of DipHE students agreed to some extent or greater that EBP represented minimal benefit in real-world practice due to Trust policy and the guidelines set out by the Joint Royal Colleges Ambulance Liaison Committee (Welch's t = 2.571, df = 26, p = 0.016 two-sided). Furthermore, 25% felt standard operating procedures negatively impacted their ability to implement EBP, and 39% reported their EBP learning had improved their ability to implement improved levels of patient care. Conclusion: A disparity between theoretical learning and EBP implementation was identified. EBP may not dovetail with standard operating procedure within UK ambulance Trusts, resulting in confusion among student paramedics as to the true worth of EBP.

Indexed as

educationevidence-based practiceimplementation scienceparamedic

Identifiers

PMID38046788
PMCPMC10690490

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.