↓ Skip to main content

Evidence-based practice, research utilization, and knowledge translation in chiropractic: a scoping review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
126 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Evidence-based practice, research utilization, and knowledge translation in chiropractic: a scoping review
Published in
BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12906-016-1175-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

André E. Bussières, Fadi Al Zoubi, Kent Stuber, Simon D. French, Jill Boruff, John Corrigan, Aliki Thomas

Abstract

Evidence-based practice (EBP) gaps are widespread across health disciplines. Understanding factors supporting the uptake of evidence can inform the design of strategies to narrow these EBP gaps. Although research utilization (RU) and the factors associated with EBP have been reported in several health disciplines, to date this area has not been reviewed comprehensively in the chiropractic profession. The purpose of this review was to report on the current state of knowledge on EBP, RU, and knowledge translation (KT) in chiropractic. A scoping review using the Arksey and O'Malley framework was used to systematically select and summarize existing literature. Searches were conducted using a combination of keywords and MeSH terms from the earliest date available in each database to May 2015. Quantitative and thematic analyses of the selected literature were conducted. Nearly 85 % (56/67) of the included studies were conducted in Canada, USA, UK or Australia. Thematic analysis for the three categories (EBP, RU, KT) revealed two themes related to EBP (attitudes and beliefs of chiropractors; implementation of EBP), three related to RU (guideline adherence; frequency and sources of information accessed; and perceived value of websites and search engines), and three related to KT (knowledge practice gaps; barriers and facilitators to knowledge use; and selection, tailoring, and implementation of interventions). EBP gaps were noted in the areas of assessment of activity limitation, determination of psychosocial factors influencing pain, general health indicators, establishing a prognosis, and exercise prescription. While most practitioners believed EBP and research to be important and a few studies suggested that traditional and online educational strategies could improve patient care, use of EBP and guideline adherence varied widely. Findings suggest that the majority of chiropractors hold favourable attitudes and beliefs toward EBP. However, much remains to be done for chiropractors to routinely apply evidence into clinical practice. Educational strategies aimed at practicing chiropractors can lead to more EBP and improved patient care. The chiropractic profession requires more robust dissemination and implementation research to improve guideline adherence and patient health outcomes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 126 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 2 2%
Italy 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 122 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 15%
Other 16 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 12%
Researcher 13 10%
Student > Bachelor 12 10%
Other 28 22%
Unknown 23 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 26 21%
Social Sciences 8 6%
Engineering 5 4%
Psychology 4 3%
Other 28 22%
Unknown 24 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 18 March 2017.
All research outputs
#4,744,337
of 16,038,547 outputs
Outputs from BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine
#871
of 2,985 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,067
of 261,696 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,038,547 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,985 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 261,696 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them