ArticleJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2026
Defining Core Evidence-Based Practice Knowledge for Health Professionals: A Delphi Consensus Study.
Article in Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 2026. 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
RATIONALE, AIMS AND
objectivesA clearly defined content domain is needed to assess whether health professionals possess the conceptual knowledge required for Evidence-Based Practice (EBP). Existing competency frameworks and assessment instruments often combine knowledge with skills, attitudes and behaviours, limiting the identification of specific knowledge deficits. This study aimed to define the core EBP knowledge domain and obtain content validity evidence for a taxonomy applicable across health professions.
methodThe study comprised three phases. First, two structured literature reviews identified relevant EBP competency frameworks and knowledge assessment instruments. These findings informed the operational definition of the EBP knowledge construct and the development of a preliminary seven-dimension taxonomy. Content validity was then examined through a two-round Delphi study. Eighteen experts participated in the first round and 17 in the second. Panellists rated the adequacy and relevance of each dimension and content area using a six-point Likert scale and provided qualitative feedback. Agreement was defined as the proportion of experts assigning a score of 5 or 6, with a retention threshold of at least 80% for both criteria.
resultsAfter the first Delphi round, several areas were reformulated, redistributed or removed to reduce conceptual overlap, and two dimensions were eliminated. In the second round, all retained dimensions and areas reached the agreement threshold except one newly introduced area, which was removed. The final taxonomy comprised 15 content areas organised into five dimensions: clinical question formulation, scientific literature search, critical appraisal, evidence implementation and knowledge translation, and evaluation of the EBP process.
conclusionThe taxonomy provides a consensus-informed representation of core EBP knowledge and distinguishes conceptual knowledge from broader professional competence. It offers a basis for future objective assessment development and for identifying knowledge gaps in EBP training and implementation initiatives.
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.