| Title |
Evidence-based practice profiles among bachelor students in four health disciplines: a cross-sectional study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Education, September 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12909-018-1319-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Anne Kristin Snibsøer, Birgitte Graverholt, Monica Wammen Nortvedt, Trond Riise, Birgitte Espehaug |
| Abstract |
Despite the recognition of integrating evidence-based practice (EBP) in educational programs, there is limited research about bachelor students' EBP profiles (EBP knowledge, attitudes and behaviour) in the health disciplines nursing, occupational therapy, physiotherapy and radiography. The aim of this study was to assess EBP profiles among bachelor students in health disciplines, and explore differences between health disciplines, educational institutions, students' assessment of EBP teaching and expectations of EBP performance. A survey using the 'Evidence-Based Practice Profile - Norwegian version' (EBP2-N) was conducted among final year bachelor students in health disciplines from four educational institutions. The questionnaire consisted of five domains (Relevance, Terminology, Confidence, Practice and Sympathy) and assessed the five steps of EBP. We performed regression analyses to analyse mean differences in domain scores between health disciplines, Cohen's d to illustrate the magnitude of the largest difference in each domain, Omega squared to describe portion of variance in domain scores, and Spearman's rho (rs) to assess the monotonic relationship between EBP2-N domains and assessment of EBP teaching and expectations of EBP performance, respectively. Students reported highest overall mean score for Relevance, with an estimated standardized mean of 81.2 (CI 95% = 80.4-82.0). The other EBP2-N domains had estimated standardized means of 54 and less. Statistically significant differences (p < 0.03) between health disciplines were observed for all domains. The largest mean difference was found for Relevance with highest score for occupational therapy and lowest for radiography, with an estimated Cohen's d of 1.11. Moderate positive associations were observed between Relevance scores and students' assessment of EBP teaching (rs = 0.31), and expectations of EBP performance from teachers (rs = 0.36). We also observed a moderate positive correlation between Confidence and students' assessment of EBP teaching (rs = 0.46). Bachelor students in health disciplines found EBP relevant, but revealed low understanding of EBP terminology, low confidence with EBP skills, and low use of EBP in clinical situations. We observed differences in EBP profiles between health disciplines and between educational institutions. The differences in scores raise questions about the understanding of EBP within disciplines, and the complexity of EBP in educational settings. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Spain | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 93 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 16 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 9% |
| Other | 7 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 8% |
| Other | 13 | 14% |
| Unknown | 28 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 30 | 32% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 16% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 7 | 8% |
| Unknown | 30 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 September 2018.
All research outputs
#17,990,045
of 23,103,436 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#2,648
of 3,387 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#241,916
of 337,432 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#59
of 74 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,103,436 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,387 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 337,432 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 74 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.