ArticleBMC primary care2024
The dilemma of the split between theory and reality as experienced by primary healthcare professionals: a mixed methods study of evidence-based practice in a primary care context.
Article in BMC primary care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Undergraduate nursing students' experiences with evidence-based practice during clinical internship: a qualitative study.BMC nursing · 2026Article
- Implementing clinical practice guidelines into action: a qualitative study of managing knowledge translation in primary care organisations.Health research policy and systems · 2025Article
- Barriers and facilitators in implementing evidence-based practice: a parallel cross-sectional mixed methods study among nursing administrators.BMC nursing · 2025Article
- Assessing knowledge, attitudes, and skills toward evidence-based practice among Palestinian nursing students.BMC nursing · 2025Article
- Balancing between dual belongings when organised into interdisciplinary teams, with the trust model as the context: A qualitative study.BMC primary care · 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
backgroundPrimary care depends upon a good information flow across professional and structural boundaries to provide the best care for patients. Previous research has mainly focused on Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) within specific professions. Mapping of pan-professional experiences of and attitudes to EBP in publicly funded clinical practice is necessary to deepen the understanding of EBP and its implementation. Thus, this study aimed to investigate healthcare professionals' experiences of and attitudes towards working in accordance with EBP in primary care.
methodsThe study used a convergent mixed methods design divided into two strands: a quantitative enquiry tool (Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale, EBPAS) and a set of qualitative interviews analysed by means of qualitative content analysis. Both strands included all primary care employees with patient interaction in the studied county (n = 625), including doctors, nurses, physiotherapists, psychologists and assistant nurses. Out of the original 625 healthcare professionals, 191 finished the first strand and 8 volunteered for the second strand (2 nurses, 2 physiotherapists, 1 psychiatrist and 3 doctors).
resultsThe EBPAS value of 2.8 (max 4) indicated a generally positive attitude towards EBP amongst the population, which was also evident in the interviews. However, there were additional experiences of not having the ability or resources to engage in EBP. This was illustrated by the theme that emerged from the qualitative content analysis: "The dilemma of the split between theory and reality". Due to the organisational and managerial focus on efficiency rather than quality of care, there were few or no incentives for promoting individual educational or research development.
conclusionsAlthough the general attitude towards EBP is positive, experiences of practising it differ. There is a need to increase knowledge of EBP concepts, requirements and implementation in the clinical setting. The absence of opportunities to do research and collegial debate about new ways of finding and implementing research-based evidence results might influence the quality of care.
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.