Search

Background: Self-reported scales and objective measurement tools are used to evaluate self-perceived and objective knowledge of evidence-based practice (EBP). Agreement between self-perceived and objective knowledge of EBP terminology has not been widely investigated among healthcare students., Aim: The aim of this study was to examine agreement between self-reported and objectively assessed knowledge of EBP terminology among healthcare students. A secondary objective was to explore this agreement between students with different levels of EBP exposure., Methods: Students in various healthcare disciplines and at different academic levels from Norway (n = 336) and Canada (n = 154) were invited to answer the Terminology domain items of the Evidence-Based Practice Profile (EBP2) questionnaire (self-reported), an additional item of 'evidence based practice' and six random open-ended questions (objective). The open-ended questions were scored on a five-level scoring rubric. Interrater agreement between self-reported and objective items was investigated with weighted kappa (Kw). Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to estimate overall agreement., Results: Mean self-reported scores varied across items from 1.99 ('forest plot') to 4.33 ('evidence-based practice'). Mean assessed open-ended answers varied from 1.23 ('publication bias') to 2.74 ('evidence-based practice'). For all items, mean self-reported knowledge was higher than that assessed from open-ended answers (p<0.001). Interrater agreement between self-reported and assessed open-ended items varied (Kw = 0.04-0.69). The overall agreement for the EBP2 Terminology domain was poor (ICC = 0.29). The self-reported EBP2 Terminology domain discriminated between levels of EBP exposure., Conclusion: An overall low agreement was found between healthcare students' self-reported and objectively assessed knowledge of EBP terminology. As a measurement tool, the EBP2 Terminology scale may be useful to differentiate between levels of EBP exposure. When using the scale as a discriminatory tool, for the purpose of academic promotion or clinical certification, users should be aware that self-ratings would be higher than objectively assessed knowledge., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Background: Health professionals require a unique set of knowledge and skills in order to meet increasing expectations to use research evidence to inform practice and policy decisions. They need to be able to find, access, interpret, and apply the best available research evidence, along with information about patient preferences, clinical expertise, and the clinical context and resources, to such decisions. This study determined preferences for continuing education following an intensive educational workshop and evaluated the impact of the workshop on evidence informed decision making (EIDM) knowledge, skills, and behaviours., Methods: An explanatory mixed methods, longitudinal study design was implemented among a convenience sample of various health care professionals attending the workshop. EIDM knowledge, skills, and behaviours were quantitatively measured at baseline and six month follow-up, with EIDM knowledge and skills measured additionally immediately following the educational workshop (post-test measurement). To determine participants preferences for continuing education, data were collected using quantitative survey (post-test measurement) and qualitative (individual telephone interviews after six-month follow-up) methods., Results: EIDM knowledge and skills increased significantly from baseline to immediately following the intervention [5.6, 95% CI (3.7, 7.4), P < 0.001] and from baseline to six-month follow-up [3.7, 95% CI (2.1, 5.3), P < 0.001], with a significant decrease from immediately following the intervention to six-month follow-up [-1.9, 95% CI (-3.5, -0.3), P 0.018]. EIDM behaviours increased, but not significantly, from baseline to six-month follow-up [1.7, 95% CI (-0.3, 3.8), P 0.095]. At baseline and six-month follow-up there was a weak, non-significant positive correlation between EIDM knowledge and skills and EIDM behaviours (r = 0.29, P 0.069 and r = 0.24, P 0.136, respectively). Over time there was a shift in preferences for timing and frequency of online continuing education strategies. Willingness to participate in continuing education, however, remained evident., Conclusions: An intensive educational workshop shows promise for increasing EIDM knowledge and skills. Increasing EIDM knowledge and skills may promote the capacity of health professionals to use research evidence when making practice and policy decisions and, in turn, lead to positive patient outcomes.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine the extent to which parenting styles is associated with diabetes control in children (aged 5-12 years) with type 1 diabetes, and on child and parent quality of life., Methods: Data were collected from a total of 216 parent and child dyads, from 4 pediatric diabetes clinics in southern Ontario, using a cross-sectional survey methodology. Each parent and child independently completed the questionnaires. The study instruments included the Parenting Dimensions Inventory, Pediatric Quality of Life (diabetes specific), and chart reviews for glycosylated hemoglobin (A1C) levels., Results: The results of the study demonstrated that parenting styles were not correlated with diabetes control and were weakly correlated with quality of life. Most parents reported behaviors of authoritative or democratic parenting. The mean glycosylated hemoglobin (A1C) for children in the study was slightly above optimal target range, at 8.4%. Parental education had a weak negative correlation with diabetes control., Conclusions: Parenting styles are not associated with diabetes control and quality of life in children with type 1 diabetes. However, further research should assess the impact of the determinants of parenting on children with type 1 diabetes and quality of life.

Health outcomes are becoming the currency of health care exchange, and a call for evidence dominates decision making at all levels. This discussion paper reviews methodological and sociopolitical barriers that impede the production and dissemination of outcome research in public health, with particular reference to nursing. Barriers to the production of high-quality research evidence include inaccessible graduate education and inadequate research funding. Also, randomized controlled trials (the ideal design for interventions studies) are uniquely difficult to implement for public health services. Practical and ethical difficulties arise in defining the intervention, implementing random allocation methods, selecting and measuring outcomes, and articulating adequate theoretical frameworks. When health care activity is defined as output, there is a tendency to exclude the ethical standing of preventive, supportive and communitarian functions. The production and interpretation of research results must remain part of a social, political and ethical debate, not a purely scientific one.

The purpose of this systematic overview was to assess the evidence for the effectiveness of public health nursing interventions when carried out by the strategy of home visiting. A search of published and unpublished literature resulted in retrieval of 108 articles; 77 articles were judged to be relevant. Validity criteria included method of allocation to the study groups, level of agreement to participate in the study, control for confounders, method of data collection (pretesting of data collection tools, blinding of data collectors to group allocation of study participants), quantitative measure of effect and percentage of participants available at follow-up. Using these criteria, 9 articles were judged to be strong, 5 moderate and 63 weak. There were no reported negative effects of home visiting in the 9 strong articles. Positive outcomes included improvement in children's mental development, mental health and physical growth; reduction in mother's anxiety, depression, and tobacco use; improvement in maternal employment, nutrition and other health habits; government cost saving; and reduced level of care required for the elderly.