| Title |
Effectiveness of training in evidence-based medicine skills for healthcare professionals: a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Education, April 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12909-016-0616-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lars Hecht, Susanne Buhse, Gabriele Meyer |
| Abstract |
Basic skills in evidence-based medicine (EbM) are indispensable for healthcare professionals to promote consumer-centred, evidence-based treatment. EbM training courses are complex interventions - a fact that has not been methodologically reflected by previous systematic reviews. This review evaluates the effects of EbM training for healthcare professionals as well as the quality of reporting of such training interventions. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, ERIC, Campbell Library and PsycINFO up to 9/2014. Randomised controlled trials, controlled clinical trials as well as before-after trials were included. Authors were contacted in order to obtain missing data. Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We reviewed 14.507 articles; n = 61 appeared potentially eligible; n = 13 involving 1,120 participants were included. EbM training shows some impact on knowledge and skills, whereas the impact on practical EbM application remains unclear. Risk of bias of included trials raises uncertainty about the effects. Description of complex interventions was poor. EbM training has some positive effects on knowledge and skills of healthcare professionals. Appropriate methods for development, piloting, evaluation, reporting and implementation of the training should be applied. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 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 | 3 | 13% |
| Japan | 3 | 13% |
| United States | 3 | 13% |
| Spain | 2 | 8% |
| Greece | 1 | 4% |
| Ecuador | 1 | 4% |
| Dominican Republic | 1 | 4% |
| France | 1 | 4% |
| Finland | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Unknown | 6 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 19 | 79% |
| Scientists | 3 | 13% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 161 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Peru | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 160 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 21 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 15 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 13 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 7% |
| Researcher | 10 | 6% |
| Other | 46 | 29% |
| Unknown | 44 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 51 | 32% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 25 | 16% |
| Psychology | 7 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 23 | 14% |
| Unknown | 46 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 26 January 2023.
All research outputs
#2,538,156
of 25,205,864 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#392
of 3,922 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,793
of 306,779 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#8
of 76 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,205,864 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,922 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
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 306,779 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 76 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.