Search

Background: GPs report various barriers to the use and practice of evidence-based medicine (EBM). A review of research on these barriers may help solve problems regarding the uptake of evidence in clinical outpatient practice.Aim: To determine the barriers encountered by GPs in the practice of EBM and to come up with solutions to the barriers identified.Design: A systematic review of the literature.Method: The following databases were searched: MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, CINAHL, ERIC, and the Cochrane Library, until February 2011. Primary studies (all methods, all languages) that explore the barriers that GPs encounter in the practice of EBM were included.Results: A total of 14 700 articles were identified, of which 22 fulfilled all inclusion criteria. Of the latter, nine concerned qualitative, 12 concerned quantitative, and one concerned both qualitative and quantitative research methods. The barriers described in the articles cover the categories: evidence (including the accompanying EBM steps), the GP's preferences (experience, expertise, education), and the patient's preferences. The particular GP setting also has important barriers to the use of EBM. Barriers found in this review, among others, include lack of time, EBM skills, and available evidence; patient-related factors; and the attitude of the GP.Conclusion: Various barriers are encountered when using EBM in GP practice. Interventions that help GPs to overcome these barriers are needed, both within EBM education and in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Teaching the steps of evidence-based practice (EBP) has become standard curriculum for health professions at both student and professional levels. Determining the best methods for evaluating EBP learning is hampered by a dearth of valid and practical assessment tools and by the absence of guidelines for classifying the purpose of those that exist. Conceived and developed by delegates of the Fifth International Conference of Evidence-Based Health Care Teachers and Developers, the aim of this statement is to provide guidance for purposeful classification and development of tools to assess EBP learning. Discussion This paper identifies key principles for designing EBP learning assessment tools, recommends a common taxonomy for new and existing tools, and presents the Classification Rubric for EBP Assessment Tools in Education (CREATE) framework for classifying such tools. Recommendations are provided for developers of EBP learning assessments and priorities are suggested for the types of assessments that are needed. Examples place existing EBP assessments into the CREATE framework to demonstrate how a common taxonomy might facilitate purposeful development and use of EBP learning assessment tools. Summary The widespread adoption of EBP into professional education requires valid and reliable measures of learning. Limited tools exist with established psychometrics. This international consensus statement strives to provide direction for developers of new EBP learning assessment tools and a framework for classifying the purposes of such tools.

Abstract Background Learning styles determine how people manage new information. Evidence-based medicine (EBM) involves the management of information in clinical practice. As a consequence, the way in which a person uses EBM can be related to his or her learning style. In order to tailor EBM education to the individual learner, this study aims to determine whether there is a relationship between an individual's learning style and EBM competence (knowledge/skills, attitude, behaviour). Methods In 2008, we conducted a survey among 140 novice GP trainees in order to assess their EBM competence and learning styles (Accommodator, Diverger, Assimilator, Converger, or mixed learning style). Results The trainees' EBM knowledge/skills (scale 0-15; mean 6.8; 95%CI 6.4-7.2) were adequate and their attitudes towards EBM (scale 0-100; mean 63; 95%CI 61.3-64.3) were positive. We found no relationship between their knowledge/skills or attitudes and their learning styles (p = 0.21; p = 0.19). Of the trainees, 40% used guidelines to answer clinical questions and 55% agreed that the use of guidelines is the most appropriate way of applying EBM in general practice. Trainees preferred using evidence from summaries to using evidence from single studies. There were no differences in medical decision-making or in EBM use (p = 0.59) for the various learning styles. However, we did find a link between having an Accommodating or Converging learning style and making greater use of intuition. Moreover, trainees with different learning styles expressed different ideas about the optimal use of EBM in primary care. Conclusions We found that EBM knowledge/skills and EBM attitudes did not differ with respect to the learning styles of GP trainees. However, we did find differences relating to the use of intuition and the trainees' ideas regarding the use of evidence in decision-making.

Background: Profound scientific evaluation of novel digital health technologies (DHTs) is key to enhance successful development and implementation. As such, we previously developed the eHealth evaluation cycle. The eHealth evaluation cycle contains 5 consecutive study phases: conceptual, development, feasibility, effectiveness, and implementation., Objective: The aim of this study is to develop a better understanding of the daily practice of the eHealth evaluation cycle. Therefore, the objectives are to conduct a structured analysis of literature data to analyze the practice of the evaluation study phases and to determine which evaluation approaches are used in which study phase of the eHealth evaluation cycle., Methods: We conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed including the MeSH term "telemedicine" in combination with a wide variety of evaluation approaches. Original peer-reviewed studies published in the year 2019 (pre-COVID-19 cohort) were included. Nonpatient-focused studies were excluded. Data on the following variables were extracted and systematically analyzed: journal, country, publication date, medical specialty, primary user, functionality, evaluation study phases, and evaluation approach. RStudio software was used to summarize the descriptive data and to perform statistical analyses., Results: We included 824 studies after 1583 titles and abstracts were screened. The majority of the evaluation studies focused on the effectiveness (impact; 304/824, 36.9%) study phase, whereas uptake (implementation; 70/824, 8.5%) received the least focus. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs; 170/899, 18.9%) were the most commonly used DHT evaluation method. Within the effectiveness (impact) study phase, RCTs were used in one-half of the studies. In the conceptual and planning phases, survey research (27/78, 35%) and interview studies (27/78, 35%) were most frequently used. The United States published the largest amount of DHT evaluation studies (304/824, 36.9%). Psychiatry and mental health (89/840, 10.6%) and cardiology (75/840, 8.9%) had the majority of studies published within the field., Conclusions: We composed the first comprehensive overview of the actual practice of implementing consecutive DHT evaluation study phases. We found that the study phases of the eHealth evaluation cycle are unequally studied and most attention is paid to the effectiveness study phase. In addition, the majority of the studies used an RCT design. However, in order to successfully develop and implement novel DHTs, stimulating equal evaluation of the sequential study phases of DHTs and selecting the right evaluation approach that fits the iterative nature of technology might be of the utmost importance., (©Anneloek Rauwerdink, Pier Spinazze, Harm Gijsbers, Juul Molendijk, Sandra Zwolsman, Marlies P Schijven, Niels H Chavannes, Marise J Kasteleyn. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 28.08.2024.)