1Society of Junior Doctors, Athens, Greece
2Department of Anesthesiology, University Hospital of Heraklion, Heraklion, Greece
3Department of Upper Gastrointestinal and Bariatric Surgery, St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
4Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Venizeleio General Hospital, Heraklion, Greece
5Department of Nursing, Technological and Educational Institute of Crete, Sitia, Greece
6Department of Child and Family Health, Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing and Midwifery, London, UK
Copyright © 2016, Korea Health Personnel Licensing Examination Institute
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Author et al. (year) [reference] | Main study characteristics | Aim of the study | Intervention & instrument | Main findings |
---|---|---|---|---|
Gruppen et al. (2005) [5] |
US, Michigan, University of Michigan Medical School, 2001-2003 4th year medical students (n=92) |
To examine the influence of teaching the EBM skill of efficiently searching the research literature and describe criteria for documenting and guantifying search quality |
SI: 90'-session on EBP Study questionnaire |
Average number of search errors for each student: intervention vs. control group (4.4 vs. 6.2) Search performance: intervention (60% vs.72.5%); control (60% vs. 59.3%) Average improvement in search quality: intervention vs. control group (12.7% vs. -0.7%) |
Okoromah et al. (2006) [22] |
Nigeria, Lagos, University of Lagos, 2006 5th year medical students (n=54) |
To explore the feasibility of introducing a course aiming to improve students'competencies in EBM and their learning |
SI: 3-month course Study questionnaire |
Pre- vs. post- course mean scores: mean (SD) Mean scores for their understanding of the EBM concepts: 2.20 (0.85) vs. 3.17 (0.80), P<0.001 Mean scores for student knowledge about the need for effective literature search processes in EBM practice: 3.24 (0.71) vs. 3.33 (0.89), P>0.05 |
Liabsuetrakul et al. (2009) [19] |
Thailand, HatYai, Prince of Songkla University, 2005-2007 4th year medical students (n=259) |
To determine changes in attitudes and skills after integration of EBM into a medical school curriculum |
SI: 5 steps taught in small-group sessions, the first 3 during the 4th year of studies and the other 2 during the 5th year (total time 15 months) Study questionnaire |
Comparison of scores at TO, T1, & T2: median (interguartile range) Overall attitudes: 2.4 (1.7, 3.0) vs. 3.6 (3.0, 4.0) vs. 4.0 (3.4, 4.2) Overall skills: 2.2 (1.8, 2.8) vs. 3.4 (3.0, 4.0) vs. 3.8 (3.2, 4.0) |
Aronoff et al. (2010) [6] |
US, Philadelphia,Temple University, 2005-2006 3rd year medical students (n=139) |
To determine the impact of the online course in EBM that runs concurrently with the undergraduate clinical clerkships of a medical school |
Ml: online EBM instruction, 6 online didactic modules and sessions Fresno questionnaire |
Pre- vs. post- course comparisons: mean (SD) Question development: 3.73 (1.27) vs. 4.13 (1.39), P<0.001 Sources of evidence: 3.96 (1.54) vs. 4.53 (1.45), P<0.001 Search strategies: 5.07 (1.88) vs. 5.86 (1.52), P<0.001 |
Lai et al. (2010) [18] |
Malaysia,Kuala Lumpur, International Medical University, Clinical School Batu Pahat, 2005-2006 Final year medical students (n=65) |
To evaluate the information-seeking behaviors of medical undergraduate students by the final 6 months of the EBM training |
SI: six two-hour clinical sessions Study questionnaire |
Pre- vs. post-training scores Search activities: 9.7% vs. 31.7%, P<0.001 Search speed pre- vs. post- training: 48.4% vs. 49.2%, P=0.979 |
West et al. (2011) [9] |
USA, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, 2006-2008 2nd year medical students (n=99) |
To evaluate a longitudinal medical school EBM curriculum using validated instruments |
Ml: short course, didactic, small-group sessions, EBM assignments Berlin questionnaire Fresno questionnaire |
Pre- vs. post- course scores Self-rated EBM knowledge: year 2 (2.1 vs. 3.1, P<0.001); year 3 (2.1 vs. 3.5, P<0.001) Berlin questionnaire score: year 2 (6.3 vs. 9.3, P<0.001); year 3 (6.3 vs. 9.7, P<0.001) Fresno test: year 2 (97.8 vs. 137.5, P<0.001); year 3 (97.8 vs. 152.4, P<0.001) |
Cheng et al. (2012) [20] |
Taiwan,Taipei,Taipei Medical School, 2008-2009 Final (7th) year medical students (n=94) |
To compare the effects of 2 clinically integrated educational strategies on final year medical students'EBP competencies |
SI: EBP-structured case conference for group A & didactic lectures for group B EBP questionnaire divided into 4 domains: EBP-K (knowledge), EBP-P (application), EBP-A (attitude) and EBP-F (future use) |
Mean (SD) Group A higher scores in EBP-K: 21.2 (3.5) vs. 19.0 (4.6), P<0.01 EBP-P: 18.7 (4.3) vs. 15.3 (3.9), P=0.001 |
Gagliardi et al. (2012) [10] |
US, Durham, Duke University School of Medicine, 2008-2009 3rd and 4th year medical students (n=30) |
To describe how an interactive forum for students contributed in developing EBM skills and competences |
SI: interactive forum organized in 6 120-minutes sessions Study questionnaire |
Median difference between overall scores from pre- to post- course administrations was 13% (min 13% and max 73%) (P< 0.001) |
Ilic et al. (2012) [15] |
Australia, Melbourne, Monash University 3rd year medical students (n=121) |
To identify the effectiveness of delivering a single workshop in EBM literature searching skills to medical students entering their first clinical years of study |
SI: 2 hours workshop Fresno questionnaire Clinical effectiveness and EBP |
1-Week post-intervention: mean (SD) Overall EBM literature searching skills: 10.51 (5.10) vs. 10.50 (4.53), P=0.99 Writing a focused clinical question: 1.73 (0.66) vs. 1.76 (0.76), P=0.82 Identifying information sources: 2.31 (1.84) vs. 2.78 (1.77), P=0.15 Identifying an appropriate study type: 4.33 (2.85) vs. 3.80 (2.77), P=0.30 Performing a literature search: 2.12 (2.39) vs. 2.14 (2.51), P=0.96 |
Morley et al. (2012) [13] |
US, Rio Rancho, New Mexico University medical school, 2006 2nd and 3rd year medical students (n=51) |
To assist students in understanding the changing nature of scholarly communications and online publishing, identifying resources and strategies for researching best EBM and demonstrating effective communication of information |
Ml: course, exercises, small group discussion and didactic lecture Study questionnaire |
Pre- vs. post- course comparisons: mean scores Defining the topic: 3.06 vs. 3.87 Identifying keywords or subject headings: 3.09 vs. 3.90 Finding evidence-based information: 3.03 vs. 3.87 Using a database to identify articles: 3.12 vs. 3.93 Using bibliographic management software: 1.71 vs. 3.23 Assessing the reliability/validity of information on the web: 2.59 vs. 3.77 |
Sanchez-Mendiola et al. (2012) [14] |
Mexico, Mexico City, UNAM Faculty of Medicine 4th,5th,6th year medical students (n=289) M5 EBM=5th year exposed to intervention M5 non-EBM=5th year not exposed M4=4th year not yet exposed M6=6th year exposed a year before |
To assess EBM learning (knowledge, attitudes and self-reported skills) in undergraduate medical students |
SI: 14 two-hour weekly sessions Taylor’s questionnaire 100-item multiple-choice question test |
Confidence in critical appraisal skills: mean (SD) M4=11.7 (6.3) vs. M5 non-EBM=8.4 (5.7) vs. M5 EBM=17.1 (3.6) vs. M6=16.8 (4), P<0.001 |
Barghouti et al. (2013) [21] |
Jordan, Amman, Jordan University Hospital, 2011 5th year medical students (n=54) |
To assess the effectiveness of a short course in EBM to change the knowledge and skills of undergraduate medical students and point to possible incorporation of EBM in their curriculum |
Ml: lectures, seminars, online search, and answering worksheets Fresno questionnaire |
Pre- vs. post-intervention: mean (SD) scores All domains: 26.7 (16.1) vs. 119.5 (28.5), P<0.001 Sources of evidence: 7.4 (5.8) vs. 13.5 (5.1), P<0.001 Formulation of clinical question: 4.4 (3.5) vs. 10.0 (2.0), P<0.001 Searching strategies: 2.4 (3.1) vs. 10.6 (6.4), P<0.001 |
Cyrus et al. (2013) [11] |
US, Shreveport, Louisiana State University School of Medicine, 2007-2010 4th year medical students (n=319) |
To assess whether the level of knowledge and understanding of evidence-based medicine and critical appraisal of medical literature increases as a result of the course |
SI: 3-sessions course Study questionnaire |
Overall difference between pre- and post-tests scores was highly statistically significant (Z-score=-3.398, P=0.001) Number of students with all correct answers: pre- vs. post- course: 10.0% vs. 17.7% |
Author et al. (year) [reference] | Main study characteristics | Aim of the study | Course & Assessment | Main findings |
---|---|---|---|---|
Oh et al. (2010) [16] |
Korea, Seoul, 29 clinical sites at 5 tertiary hospitals, 2009 Nursing students in the 2nd semester of their 1st year divided into 8 groups (n=81) |
To enhance students' competencies for EBP knowledge, skills and attitudes and expose them to opportunities that would encourage them to use best evidence |
Ml: lectures, individual mentoring on EBP practicum, small group and wrap-up conferences The scale of efficacy toward EBP The scale of barriers of the research utilization |
Pre- vs. post- course scores: mean (SD) EBP efficacy scores: 2.30 (0.35) vs. 3.05 (0.38), P<0.001 Explain of EBP definition/goal/process: 2.54 (0.55) vs. 3.31 (0.50), P<0.001 Formulation EBP questions: 2.09 (0.41) vs. 3.06 (0.53), P<0.001 Evidence search: articles and clinical guidelines: 2.30 (0.47) vs. 2.88 (0.54), P<0.001 Appraisal of evidence: 2.16 (0.51) vs. 2.82 (0.63), P<0.001 Integrating evidence into practice: 2.42 (0.45) vs. 2.98 (0.56), P<0.001 Facilitation of EBP: 2.26 (0.49) vs. 3.00 (0.55), P<0.001 |
Bennett et al. (2011) [2] |
Australia,Queensland, University of Queensland Therapy and physiotherapy students (n=91) |
To evaluate the effectiveness of a semester-long multi-professional university course teaching EBP principles to allied health students |
Ml: 13-week period course including: didactic lectures, tutorial and workshop formats, and a hands-on database searching session Study questionnaire |
Pre- vs. post- course mean scores: mean (SD) Attitude towards EBP: 19.8 (2.01) vs. 20.02 (1.99), P=0.56 Confidence in using EBP skills: 12.51 (3.25) vs. 21.53 (2.74), P<0.001 Perceived knowledge about EBP concepts: 16.56 (5.52) vs. 30.71 (4.07), P<0.001 Actual knowledge about EBP concepts: 4.14 (2.37) vs. 7.69 (2.31), P<0.001 |
Bookstaver et al. (2011) [7] |
USA, South Carolina, South Carolina College of Pharmacy 3rd pharmacy students who were also evaluated by 38 advanced pharmacy practice experiences preceptors (n=14) |
To evaluate the impact of an elective EBM course on student performance during advanced pharmacy practice experiences |
Ml: 2-hour elective course each week, case studies, problem-based learning, journal club simulations, and student-driven wiki pages Study questionnaire |
Pre- vs. post- course: 8.6/15 vs. 13.7/15 Preceptor survey: 79% agreed that students who completed the course are more efficient in critiquing and evaluating the medical literature Student survey: 100% agreed that after the course they are confident to accurately interpret the medical literature |
Hinton et al. (2011) [8] |
USA,Texas, Baylor College of Dentistry, 2008-2009 1st year dental students |
To describe the impact of an R25 grant awarded to the Texas A&M College of Dentistry on its curriculum and faculty development efforts |
Ml: lectures, interactive sessions, small group discussions and seminars Study questionnaire |
Pre- vs. post- course comparisons More likely to read dental and medical journals: 53/104 vs. 19/90, P<0.001 More confident in evaluating research reports: 95% vs.71%, P<0.001 More experienced using evidence: 84% vs. 67%, P<0.05 |
Nakagawa et al. (2015) [17] |
Japan, Sendai, Miyagi,Tokohu University Hospital, Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, May-November2013 Pharmacy students (n=37) |
To create an EBM workshop that would enhance Japanese pharmacy students'awareness regarding the importance of reading up-to-date clinical literature |
SI: one-day workshop Study questionnaire |
Pre- vs. post-workshop comparisons: mean (SD) Pharmacists should read clinical literature regularly: pre 5.70 (0.17) vs. post 6.51 (0.13), P<0.0001 Confident to read clinical literature: pre 1.81 (0.15) vs. post 3.92 (0.18), P<0.0001 Scores on the EBM tests: pre 11.4 (0.29) vs. post 12.6 (0.22), P<0.0001 |
Long et al. (2016) [12] |
Study 1: USA and Middle East, Fall 2013-Spring 2014, guasi-experimental study, nursing students (n=158) Study 2: USA, RCT, nutrition students (n=80) Study 3: USA, RCT, pharmacy students (n=79) |
To report the results of the effectiveness of the evidence-based radiology tool to improve the overall online research and critical appraisal skills of learners engaged in EBP |
SI: web-based, evidence-based research tool that is usable from a computer, smartphone, or iPad Study questionnaire |
Pre- vs. post-intervention mean difference in scores Improvement in research skills: study 1: T1-T2 (3.50-2.88), P<0.05; study 2 (intervention vs. control): T1-T2 (2.85-2.44) vs. (2.60-2.21), P=0.002; study 3 (intervention vs. control): T1-T2 (3.17-2.83) vs. (3.00-2.47), P=0.001 |
Ruzafa-Martinez et al. (2016) [4] |
Spain, Public University, during spring term in 2010 2nd and 3rd nursing students (n=148) IG=75, CG=73 |
To evaluate the effectiveness of an EBP course on the EBP competence undergraduate nursing students |
Ml: theoretical classes, practical classes with access to computers, peer group discussions in small groups, individual work, teamwork, and oral presentation of a final project EBP competence questionnaire |
Pre- vs. post-intervention comparisons: mean (95% Cl) EBP competence: CG: 3.37 (3.25-3.5) vs. 3.62 (3.51-3.73); IG: 3.06 (2.93-3.19) vs. 4.11 (4.01-4.22) EBP attitude: CG: 3.84 (3.65-4.03) vs. 3.92 (3.8-4.05); IG: 3.33 (3.14-3.52) vs. 4.28 (4.16-4.41) EBP knowledge: CG: 2.51 (2.32-2.71) vs. 3.01 (2.87-3.15); IG: 2.82 (2.62-3.02) vs. 3.92 (3.77-4.06) EBP skills: CG: 3.2 (3.01-3.38) vs. 3.49 (3.32-3.65); IG: 2.75 (2.56-2.94) vs. 4.01 (3.85-4.18) |
Teaching strategies for EBP among health students | Search terms |
---|---|
Health students | 1. * Students, Nursing/ |
2. * Students Medical / | |
3. * Students, Dental / | |
4. * Health students / | |
5. 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 | |
Teaching strategies | 6. * Models, Educational / |
7. * Education / | |
8. * Health education / | |
9. * Education, Nursing, Graduate / | |
10. * Teaching/ | |
11. * Curriculum/ | |
12. * Training/ | |
13. * Critical appraisal/ | |
14.* Workshops/ | |
15. * Journal clubs/ | |
17. 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 or 10 or 11 or 12 or 13 or 14 or 15 | |
EBP | 16. * Evidence-Based Practice/ |
17. * Evidence-Based Nursing / | |
18. * Evidence-Based Dentistry/ | |
19. *Evidence-Based Emergency Medicine/ | |
20. 16 OR 17 OR 18 OR 19 | |
Combined terms | 34. 5 AND 17 AND 20 |
Author et al. (year) [reference] | Main study characteristics | Aim of the study | Intervention & instrument | Main findings |
---|---|---|---|---|
Gruppen et al. (2005) [5] | US, Michigan, University of Michigan Medical School, 2001-2003 4th year medical students (n=92) |
To examine the influence of teaching the EBM skill of efficiently searching the research literature and describe criteria for documenting and guantifying search quality | SI: 90'-session on EBP Study questionnaire |
Average number of search errors for each student: intervention vs. control group (4.4 vs. 6.2) Search performance: intervention (60% vs.72.5%); control (60% vs. 59.3%) Average improvement in search quality: intervention vs. control group (12.7% vs. -0.7%) |
Okoromah et al. (2006) [22] | Nigeria, Lagos, University of Lagos, 2006 5th year medical students (n=54) |
To explore the feasibility of introducing a course aiming to improve students'competencies in EBM and their learning | SI: 3-month course Study questionnaire |
Pre- vs. post- course mean scores: mean (SD) Mean scores for their understanding of the EBM concepts: 2.20 (0.85) vs. 3.17 (0.80), P<0.001 Mean scores for student knowledge about the need for effective literature search processes in EBM practice: 3.24 (0.71) vs. 3.33 (0.89), P>0.05 |
Liabsuetrakul et al. (2009) [19] | Thailand, HatYai, Prince of Songkla University, 2005-2007 4th year medical students (n=259) |
To determine changes in attitudes and skills after integration of EBM into a medical school curriculum | SI: 5 steps taught in small-group sessions, the first 3 during the 4th year of studies and the other 2 during the 5th year (total time 15 months) Study questionnaire |
Comparison of scores at TO, T1, & T2: median (interguartile range) Overall attitudes: 2.4 (1.7, 3.0) vs. 3.6 (3.0, 4.0) vs. 4.0 (3.4, 4.2) Overall skills: 2.2 (1.8, 2.8) vs. 3.4 (3.0, 4.0) vs. 3.8 (3.2, 4.0) |
Aronoff et al. (2010) [6] | US, Philadelphia,Temple University, 2005-2006 3rd year medical students (n=139) |
To determine the impact of the online course in EBM that runs concurrently with the undergraduate clinical clerkships of a medical school | Ml: online EBM instruction, 6 online didactic modules and sessions Fresno questionnaire |
Pre- vs. post- course comparisons: mean (SD) Question development: 3.73 (1.27) vs. 4.13 (1.39), P<0.001 Sources of evidence: 3.96 (1.54) vs. 4.53 (1.45), P<0.001 Search strategies: 5.07 (1.88) vs. 5.86 (1.52), P<0.001 |
Lai et al. (2010) [18] | Malaysia,Kuala Lumpur, International Medical University, Clinical School Batu Pahat, 2005-2006 Final year medical students (n=65) |
To evaluate the information-seeking behaviors of medical undergraduate students by the final 6 months of the EBM training | SI: six two-hour clinical sessions Study questionnaire |
Pre- vs. post-training scores Search activities: 9.7% vs. 31.7%, P<0.001 Search speed pre- vs. post- training: 48.4% vs. 49.2%, P=0.979 |
West et al. (2011) [9] | USA, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, 2006-2008 2nd year medical students (n=99) |
To evaluate a longitudinal medical school EBM curriculum using validated instruments | Ml: short course, didactic, small-group sessions, EBM assignments Berlin questionnaire Fresno questionnaire |
Pre- vs. post- course scores Self-rated EBM knowledge: year 2 (2.1 vs. 3.1, P<0.001); year 3 (2.1 vs. 3.5, P<0.001) Berlin questionnaire score: year 2 (6.3 vs. 9.3, P<0.001); year 3 (6.3 vs. 9.7, P<0.001) Fresno test: year 2 (97.8 vs. 137.5, P<0.001); year 3 (97.8 vs. 152.4, P<0.001) |
Cheng et al. (2012) [20] | Taiwan,Taipei,Taipei Medical School, 2008-2009 Final (7th) year medical students (n=94) |
To compare the effects of 2 clinically integrated educational strategies on final year medical students'EBP competencies | SI: EBP-structured case conference for group A & didactic lectures for group B EBP questionnaire divided into 4 domains: EBP-K (knowledge), EBP-P (application), EBP-A (attitude) and EBP-F (future use) |
Mean (SD) Group A higher scores in EBP-K: 21.2 (3.5) vs. 19.0 (4.6), P<0.01 EBP-P: 18.7 (4.3) vs. 15.3 (3.9), P=0.001 |
Gagliardi et al. (2012) [10] | US, Durham, Duke University School of Medicine, 2008-2009 3rd and 4th year medical students (n=30) |
To describe how an interactive forum for students contributed in developing EBM skills and competences | SI: interactive forum organized in 6 120-minutes sessions Study questionnaire |
Median difference between overall scores from pre- to post- course administrations was 13% (min 13% and max 73%) (P< 0.001) |
Ilic et al. (2012) [15] | Australia, Melbourne, Monash University 3rd year medical students (n=121) |
To identify the effectiveness of delivering a single workshop in EBM literature searching skills to medical students entering their first clinical years of study | SI: 2 hours workshop Fresno questionnaire Clinical effectiveness and EBP |
1-Week post-intervention: mean (SD) Overall EBM literature searching skills: 10.51 (5.10) vs. 10.50 (4.53), P=0.99 Writing a focused clinical question: 1.73 (0.66) vs. 1.76 (0.76), P=0.82 Identifying information sources: 2.31 (1.84) vs. 2.78 (1.77), P=0.15 Identifying an appropriate study type: 4.33 (2.85) vs. 3.80 (2.77), P=0.30 Performing a literature search: 2.12 (2.39) vs. 2.14 (2.51), P=0.96 |
Morley et al. (2012) [13] | US, Rio Rancho, New Mexico University medical school, 2006 2nd and 3rd year medical students (n=51) |
To assist students in understanding the changing nature of scholarly communications and online publishing, identifying resources and strategies for researching best EBM and demonstrating effective communication of information | Ml: course, exercises, small group discussion and didactic lecture Study questionnaire |
Pre- vs. post- course comparisons: mean scores Defining the topic: 3.06 vs. 3.87 Identifying keywords or subject headings: 3.09 vs. 3.90 Finding evidence-based information: 3.03 vs. 3.87 Using a database to identify articles: 3.12 vs. 3.93 Using bibliographic management software: 1.71 vs. 3.23 Assessing the reliability/validity of information on the web: 2.59 vs. 3.77 |
Sanchez-Mendiola et al. (2012) [14] | Mexico, Mexico City, UNAM Faculty of Medicine 4th,5th,6th year medical students (n=289) M5 EBM=5th year exposed to intervention M5 non-EBM=5th year not exposed M4=4th year not yet exposed M6=6th year exposed a year before |
To assess EBM learning (knowledge, attitudes and self-reported skills) in undergraduate medical students | SI: 14 two-hour weekly sessions Taylor’s questionnaire 100-item multiple-choice question test |
Confidence in critical appraisal skills: mean (SD) M4=11.7 (6.3) vs. M5 non-EBM=8.4 (5.7) vs. M5 EBM=17.1 (3.6) vs. M6=16.8 (4), P<0.001 |
Barghouti et al. (2013) [21] | Jordan, Amman, Jordan University Hospital, 2011 5th year medical students (n=54) |
To assess the effectiveness of a short course in EBM to change the knowledge and skills of undergraduate medical students and point to possible incorporation of EBM in their curriculum | Ml: lectures, seminars, online search, and answering worksheets Fresno questionnaire |
Pre- vs. post-intervention: mean (SD) scores All domains: 26.7 (16.1) vs. 119.5 (28.5), P<0.001 Sources of evidence: 7.4 (5.8) vs. 13.5 (5.1), P<0.001 Formulation of clinical question: 4.4 (3.5) vs. 10.0 (2.0), P<0.001 Searching strategies: 2.4 (3.1) vs. 10.6 (6.4), P<0.001 |
Cyrus et al. (2013) [11] | US, Shreveport, Louisiana State University School of Medicine, 2007-2010 4th year medical students (n=319) |
To assess whether the level of knowledge and understanding of evidence-based medicine and critical appraisal of medical literature increases as a result of the course | SI: 3-sessions course Study questionnaire |
Overall difference between pre- and post-tests scores was highly statistically significant (Z-score=-3.398, P=0.001) Number of students with all correct answers: pre- vs. post- course: 10.0% vs. 17.7% |
Author et al. (year) [reference] | Main study characteristics | Aim of the study | Course & Assessment | Main findings |
---|---|---|---|---|
Oh et al. (2010) [16] | Korea, Seoul, 29 clinical sites at 5 tertiary hospitals, 2009 Nursing students in the 2nd semester of their 1st year divided into 8 groups (n=81) |
To enhance students' competencies for EBP knowledge, skills and attitudes and expose them to opportunities that would encourage them to use best evidence | Ml: lectures, individual mentoring on EBP practicum, small group and wrap-up conferences The scale of efficacy toward EBP The scale of barriers of the research utilization |
Pre- vs. post- course scores: mean (SD) EBP efficacy scores: 2.30 (0.35) vs. 3.05 (0.38), P<0.001 Explain of EBP definition/goal/process: 2.54 (0.55) vs. 3.31 (0.50), P<0.001 Formulation EBP questions: 2.09 (0.41) vs. 3.06 (0.53), P<0.001 Evidence search: articles and clinical guidelines: 2.30 (0.47) vs. 2.88 (0.54), P<0.001 Appraisal of evidence: 2.16 (0.51) vs. 2.82 (0.63), P<0.001 Integrating evidence into practice: 2.42 (0.45) vs. 2.98 (0.56), P<0.001 Facilitation of EBP: 2.26 (0.49) vs. 3.00 (0.55), P<0.001 |
Bennett et al. (2011) [2] | Australia,Queensland, University of Queensland Therapy and physiotherapy students (n=91) |
To evaluate the effectiveness of a semester-long multi-professional university course teaching EBP principles to allied health students | Ml: 13-week period course including: didactic lectures, tutorial and workshop formats, and a hands-on database searching session Study questionnaire |
Pre- vs. post- course mean scores: mean (SD) Attitude towards EBP: 19.8 (2.01) vs. 20.02 (1.99), P=0.56 Confidence in using EBP skills: 12.51 (3.25) vs. 21.53 (2.74), P<0.001 Perceived knowledge about EBP concepts: 16.56 (5.52) vs. 30.71 (4.07), P<0.001 Actual knowledge about EBP concepts: 4.14 (2.37) vs. 7.69 (2.31), P<0.001 |
Bookstaver et al. (2011) [7] | USA, South Carolina, South Carolina College of Pharmacy 3rd pharmacy students who were also evaluated by 38 advanced pharmacy practice experiences preceptors (n=14) |
To evaluate the impact of an elective EBM course on student performance during advanced pharmacy practice experiences | Ml: 2-hour elective course each week, case studies, problem-based learning, journal club simulations, and student-driven wiki pages Study questionnaire |
Pre- vs. post- course: 8.6/15 vs. 13.7/15 Preceptor survey: 79% agreed that students who completed the course are more efficient in critiquing and evaluating the medical literature Student survey: 100% agreed that after the course they are confident to accurately interpret the medical literature |
Hinton et al. (2011) [8] | USA,Texas, Baylor College of Dentistry, 2008-2009 1st year dental students |
To describe the impact of an R25 grant awarded to the Texas A&M College of Dentistry on its curriculum and faculty development efforts | Ml: lectures, interactive sessions, small group discussions and seminars Study questionnaire |
Pre- vs. post- course comparisons More likely to read dental and medical journals: 53/104 vs. 19/90, P<0.001 More confident in evaluating research reports: 95% vs.71%, P<0.001 More experienced using evidence: 84% vs. 67%, P<0.05 |
Nakagawa et al. (2015) [17] | Japan, Sendai, Miyagi,Tokohu University Hospital, Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, May-November2013 Pharmacy students (n=37) |
To create an EBM workshop that would enhance Japanese pharmacy students'awareness regarding the importance of reading up-to-date clinical literature | SI: one-day workshop Study questionnaire |
Pre- vs. post-workshop comparisons: mean (SD) Pharmacists should read clinical literature regularly: pre 5.70 (0.17) vs. post 6.51 (0.13), P<0.0001 Confident to read clinical literature: pre 1.81 (0.15) vs. post 3.92 (0.18), P<0.0001 Scores on the EBM tests: pre 11.4 (0.29) vs. post 12.6 (0.22), P<0.0001 |
Long et al. (2016) [12] | Study 1: USA and Middle East, Fall 2013-Spring 2014, guasi-experimental study, nursing students (n=158) Study 2: USA, RCT, nutrition students (n=80) Study 3: USA, RCT, pharmacy students (n=79) |
To report the results of the effectiveness of the evidence-based radiology tool to improve the overall online research and critical appraisal skills of learners engaged in EBP | SI: web-based, evidence-based research tool that is usable from a computer, smartphone, or iPad Study questionnaire |
Pre- vs. post-intervention mean difference in scores Improvement in research skills: study 1: T1-T2 (3.50-2.88), P<0.05; study 2 (intervention vs. control): T1-T2 (2.85-2.44) vs. (2.60-2.21), P=0.002; study 3 (intervention vs. control): T1-T2 (3.17-2.83) vs. (3.00-2.47), P=0.001 |
Ruzafa-Martinez et al. (2016) [4] | Spain, Public University, during spring term in 2010 2nd and 3rd nursing students (n=148) IG=75, CG=73 |
To evaluate the effectiveness of an EBP course on the EBP competence undergraduate nursing students | Ml: theoretical classes, practical classes with access to computers, peer group discussions in small groups, individual work, teamwork, and oral presentation of a final project EBP competence questionnaire |
Pre- vs. post-intervention comparisons: mean (95% Cl) EBP competence: CG: 3.37 (3.25-3.5) vs. 3.62 (3.51-3.73); IG: 3.06 (2.93-3.19) vs. 4.11 (4.01-4.22) EBP attitude: CG: 3.84 (3.65-4.03) vs. 3.92 (3.8-4.05); IG: 3.33 (3.14-3.52) vs. 4.28 (4.16-4.41) EBP knowledge: CG: 2.51 (2.32-2.71) vs. 3.01 (2.87-3.15); IG: 2.82 (2.62-3.02) vs. 3.92 (3.77-4.06) EBP skills: CG: 3.2 (3.01-3.38) vs. 3.49 (3.32-3.65); IG: 2.75 (2.56-2.94) vs. 4.01 (3.85-4.18) |
EBP, evidence-based practice.
EBM, evidence-based medicine; EBP, evidence-based practice; SI, single interventions; MI, multiple interventions.
EBP, evidence-based practice; EBM, evidence-based medicine; SI, single interventions; MI, multifaceted interventions; RCT, randomized controlled trial; CG, control group; IG, intervention group.