Use of Evidence‐Based Practice Among Healthcare Professionals After the Implementation of a New Competency‐Based Curriculum. Issue 6 (19th November 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Engels, Cynthia; Boutin, Emmanuelle; Boussely, Fabien; Bourgeon‐Ghittori, Irma; Couturier, Bérengère; Fromantin, Isabelle; Lafuente‐Lafuente, Carmelo; Canoui‐Poitrine, Florence
• Is Part Of: Worldviews on evidence-based nursing. Volume 17:Issue 6(2020)
• Page Start: 427
• Page End: 436
• Publication Date: 2020-11-19
• Subjects: evidence‐based practice -- health professions -- curriculum reform -- nurse -- occupational therapist -- podiatrist; Evidence-based nursing -- Periodicals; 610.7
• DOI: 10.1111/wvn.12474
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1545-102X

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Although evidence‐based practice (EBP) has been spreading since the 1990s, it has not yet been sufficiently implemented. Aim: Following the reform of initial training for healthcare professions in France 2012, we sought to determine whether the new curriculum was associated with more frequent use of EBP. Methods: We performed an online, cross‐sectional survey of nurses, occupational therapists, and podiatrists (divided into pre‐ and post‐reform groups) in June 2018. The questionnaire covered demographic data, use of EBP, and the perception of EBP. As holding a master's degree may enhance knowledge and use of EBP, we adjusted for this variable. Categories to analyze qualitative data were created regarding the five steps in EBP and its definition. Results: The total sample was N = 595 (pre‐reform group n = 301; post‐reform group n = 294). The proportion of respondents who frequently read the professional literature was lower in the post‐reform group than in the pre‐reform group (33% vs. 54%, respectively; OR [95% CI] = .52 [.37–.73]; p < .001). The main stated reasons for reading the professional literature were "keeping up to date with practice" and "making clinical decisions." Respondents in both groups mentioned a lack of time as the most frequent barrier to reading the literature (82%), a lack of access to bibliographical resources, and that EBP was not encouraged. Most professionals limited their definition of EBP to reading the literature and implementing research results. Linking Evidence to Action: There is a need to teach the five steps of EBP more explicitly and to embed its position into daily practice, for example, through reflective analysis practice. Professional trainings about EBP should be offered on a regular basis. Guidance coming from the healthcare directorate should include expected daily practice time for reading and journal club and giving more access to international healthcare literature.