Instruments to Assess Evidence-Based Practice Among Health Care Professionals: A Systematic Review

被引:3
|
作者
da Silva, Anderson Martins [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Valentim, Daniela Pereira [1 ]
Martins, Adriana Leite [2 ]
Padula, Rosimeire Simprini [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Cidade Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil
[2] Ctr Univ Vale Ribeira, UNIVR UNISEPE Registro, Sao Paulo, Brazil
[3] Univ Cidade Sao Paulo, Masters & Doctoral Programs Phys Therapy, Rua Cesario Galeno 475, BR-03071000 Sao Paulo, Brazil
关键词
health education; healthcare; measurement; formative evaluation; ADAPTED FRESNO TEST; METHODOLOGICAL QUALITY; VALIDATION; KNOWLEDGE; QUESTIONNAIRE; RELIABILITY; ATTITUDES; NURSES; SKILLS; COMPETENCE;
D O I
10.1177/10901981231170154
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
Background. The use of measurement instruments to assess the use of Evidence-Based Practice by health professionals has been frequently reported in studies. Aims. This systematic review aimed to summarize, describe, and evaluate the measurement properties of the instruments that evaluate the use of Evidence-Based Practice in health professionals. Methods. The search was carried out in four databases considering three groups of search terms: evidence-based practice, evaluation, and measurement proprieties. Studies were included that described the use of instruments to assess Evidence-Based Practice in health professionals, with the full-text publication, which analyzed the measurement properties, in English. The methodological quality of the studies was evaluated using COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments. Results. In total, 6,429 were found and only 92 were eligible for data analysis. Forty new instruments were identified most were developed for nursing and physical therapist. The investigators performed at least 1 type of validity test on 73% of the instruments. Reliability was tested at 90%, through internal consistency. Responsiveness was tested on less than half of the instruments (30%). Most of the instruments identified are reliable and valid to measure evidence-based practice in health professionals. Conclusion. Although the Fresno Test remains the most complete instrument, and adequate for use. The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments checklist classified 7 (seven) instruments as suitable for the target audience.
引用
收藏
页码:467 / 476
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Instruments to assess integrated care: A systematic review
    Lyngso, Anne Marie
    Halme, Nina
    Collier-Hannon, Dorcas
    Sevenants, Aline
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTEGRATED CARE, 2014, 14
  • [42] Instruments to assess integrated care: A systematic review
    Lyngso, Anne Marie
    Skavlan, Nina
    Host, Dorte
    Frolich, Anne
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTEGRATED CARE, 2014, 14
  • [43] Instruments to assess integrated care: a systematic review
    Lyngso, Anne Marie
    Godtfredsen, Nina Skavlan
    Host, Dorte
    Frolich, Anne
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTEGRATED CARE, 2014, 14
  • [44] Effectiveness of Educational Interventions to Increase Knowledge of Evidence-Based Practice Among Nurses and Physiotherapists in Primary Health Care: Protocol for a Systematic Review
    Verloo, Henk
    Melly, Pauline
    Hilfiker, Roger
    Pereira, Filipa
    JMIR RESEARCH PROTOCOLS, 2020, 9 (11):
  • [45] Mapping of instruments in Japanese for measuring evidence-based practice among clinical nurses: A scoping review
    Tomotaki, Ai
    Morioka, Noriko
    Tsuda, Yasunobu
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NURSING PRACTICE, 2023, 29 (05)
  • [46] Digital Health Competencies Among Health Care Professionals: Systematic Review
    Longhini, Jessica
    Rossettini, Giacomo
    Palese, Alvisa
    JOURNAL OF MEDICAL INTERNET RESEARCH, 2022, 24 (08)
  • [47] Barriers, Facilitators, Process and Sources of Evidence for Evidence-Based Management among Health Care Managers: A Qualitative Systematic Review
    Hasanpoor, Edris
    Hajebrahimi, Sakineh
    Janati, Ali
    Abedini, Zahra
    Haghgoshayie, Elaheh
    ETHIOPIAN JOURNAL OF HEALTH SCIENCES, 2018, 28 (05) : 665 - 680
  • [48] The difference between evidence-based medicine, evidence-based (clinical) practice, and evidence-based health care
    Puljak, Livia
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2022, 142 : 311 - 312
  • [49] Evidence-based advocacy: the public roles of health care professionals
    Williams, Bill
    MEDICAL JOURNAL OF AUSTRALIA, 2008, 189 (09) : 530 - 530
  • [50] Evidence-based advocacy: the public roles of health care professionals
    Gruen, Russell L.
    MEDICAL JOURNAL OF AUSTRALIA, 2008, 188 (12) : 684 - 685