ArticleBMJ open2024
Cross-sectional exploratory survey among health researchers in Europe on the awareness of and barriers affecting the use of an evidence-based research approach.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Academic Stressors and Sociodemographic Vulnerabilities Among Medical Students at the University of Ottawa.MedEdPublish (2016) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis exploratory study was conducted to find out how well the concept of evidence-based research (EBR) is known among European health researchers with substantial clinical research experience, and which barriers affect the use of an EBR approach. The concept of EBR implies that researchers use evidence synthesis to justify new studies and to inform their design.
designA cross-sectional exploratory survey study. SETTING AND
participantsThe survey was conducted among European health researchers. Respondents included 205 health researchers (physicians, nurses, dentists, allied health researchers and members of other professions involved in health research) with a doctoral degree or at least 5 years of research experience. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measures were the level of awareness of the concept of EBR and the presence of barriers affecting the use of an EBR approach. Secondary outcome measures include correlations between sociodemographic characteristics (eg, profession) and awareness of EBR.
resultsWe discovered that 84.4% of the respondents initially indicated their awareness of the concept of EBR. Nevertheless, 22.5% of them concluded that, on reading the definition, they either do not know or do not fully comprehend the concept of EBR. The main barriers affecting the use of an EBR approach were related to organisational issues, such as not being attributed resources (30.5% of the respondents), time (24.8%) or access to implement it (14.9%).
conclusionsDespite the limitations, this study clearly shows that ongoing initiatives are necessary to raise awareness about the importance of implementing the EBR approach in health research. This paper contributes to a discussion of the issues that obstruct the implementation of the EBR approach and potential solutions to overcome these issues, such as improving the knowledge and skills necessary to practice the EBR approach.
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.