ArticlePloS one2025
Evaluation of an evidence-based practice continuing education course for Canadian Naturopathic Doctors.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundEvidence-based practice (EBP) combines the best available evidence with clinician expertise and patient preference to improve patient outcomes. Recent evidence indicates that Canadian Naturopathic Doctors (NDs) are interested in EBP skill development. The primary objective of the present study was to assess the feasibility and acceptability of a co-designed EBP Continuing Education (CE) course for Canadian NDs. Secondary objectives included assessing changes in EBP skill, use, attitudes, and knowledge.
methodsThe CE course was evaluated using a pre-post design involving licensed Canadian NDs. The CE course consisted of five weekly, one-hour sessions that were delivered virtually. On course completion, participants reported on their level of satisfaction and provided suggestions for improvement. EBP skill, attitudes and use were assessed using the validated Evidence-Based Practice Attitudes and Utilization Survey. EBP knowledge was objectively assessed using a quiz. Changes in EBP skill, attitudes, use and knowledge were compared between baseline and the end of the course. Use of evidence was reassessed at a 2-month follow up.
resultsSixty-one NDs met eligibility criteria. Eighty-nine percent of participants agreed or strongly agreed that they were satisfied with the course. There was a significant increase in self-reported skill and objectively measured EBP knowledge, but no substantive change in EBP attitudes or use of evidence over time. Some participants indicated the level of difficulty was too high while others reported that it could have been more difficult. Participants also wanted more opportunities to practice the skills being taught in the course.
conclusionsDelivery of the co-designed EBP CE course was found to be both feasible and acceptable. Preliminary evidence suggests that participation in the course was associated with improvements in EBP knowledge and skill. Participants provided actionable suggestions to improve the course in future iterations.
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.