Search

Background: To produce graduates with strong knowledge and skills in the application of evidence into healthcare practice, it is imperative that all undergraduate health and social care students are taught, in an efficient manner, the processes involved in applying evidence into practice. The two main concepts that are linked to the application of evidence into practice are "evidence-based practice" and "evidence-informed practice." Globally, evidence-based practice is regarded as the gold standard for the provision of safe and effective healthcare. Despite the extensive awareness of evidence-based practice, healthcare practitioners continue to encounter difficulties in its implementation. This has generated an ongoing international debate as to whether evidence-based practice should be replaced with evidence-informed practice, and which of the two concepts better facilitate the effective and consistent application of evidence into healthcare practice. Objectives: The primary objective of this systematic review was to evaluate and synthesize literature on the effectiveness of evidence-informed practice versus evidence-based practice educational interventions for improving knowledge, attitudes, understanding, and behavior of undergraduate health and social care students toward the application of evidence into practice. Specifically, we planned to answer the following research questions: (1) Is there a difference (i.e., difference in content, outcome) between evidence-informed practice and evidence-based practice educational interventions?; (2) Does participating in evidence-informed practice educational interventions relative to evidence-based practice educational interventions facilitate the application of evidence into practice (as measured by, e.g., self-reports on effective application of evidence into practice)?; (3) Do both evidence-informed practice and evidence-based practice educational interventions targeted at undergraduate health and social care students influence patient outcomes (as measured by, e.g., reduced morbidity and mortality, absence of nosocomial infections)?; and (4) What factors affect the impact of evidence-informed practice and evidence-based practice educational interventions (as measured by, e.g., course content, mode of delivery, multifaceted interventions, standalone intervention)? Search Methods: We utilized a number of search strategies to identify published and unpublished studies: (1) Electronic databases: we searched Academic Search Complete, Academic search premier, AMED, Australian education index, British education index, Campbell systematic reviews, Canada bibliographic database (CBCA Education), CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Database of Abstracts of Reviews on Effectiveness, Dissertation Abstracts International, Education Abstracts, Education complete, Education full text: Wilson, ERIC, Evidence-based program database, JBI database of systematic reviews, Medline, PsycInfo, Pubmed, SciELO (Scientific Electronic Library Online), and Scopus; (2) A web search using search engines such as Google and Google scholar; (3) Grey literature search: we searched OpenGrey (System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe), System for information on Grey Literature, the Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness, and Virginia Henderson Global Nursing e-Repository; (4) Hand searching of journal articles; and (5) Tracking bibliographies of previously retrieved studies. The searches were conducted in June 2019. Selection Criteria: We planned to include both quantitative (including randomized controlled trials, non-randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental, before and after studies, prospective and retrospective cohort studies) and qualitative primary studies (including, case series, individual case reports, and descriptive cross-sectional studies, focus groups, and interviews, ethnography, phenomenology, and grounded theory), that evaluate and compare the effectiveness of any formal evidence-informed practice educational intervention to evidence-based practice educational intervention. The primary outcomes were evidence-informed practice and evidence-based practice knowledge, attitudes, understanding, and behavior. We planned to include, as participants, undergraduate pre-registration health and social care students from any geographical area. Data Collection and Analysis: Two authors independently screened the search results to assess articles for their eligibility for inclusion. The screening involved an initial screening of the title and abstracts, and subsequently, the full-text of selected articles. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion or consultation with a third author. We found no article eligible for inclusion in this review. Main Results: No studies were found which were eligible for inclusion in this review. We evaluated and excluded 46 full-text articles. This is because none of the 46 studies had evaluated and compared the effectiveness of evidence-informed practice educational interventions with evidence-based practice educational interventions. Out of the 46 articles, 45 had evaluated solely, the effectiveness of evidence-based practice educational interventions and 1 article was on evidence-informed practice educational intervention. Hence, these articles were excluded as they did not meet the inclusion criteria. Authors' Conclusions: There is an urgent need for primary studies evaluating the relative effectiveness of evidence-informed practice and evidence-based practice educational interventions targeted at improving undergraduate healthcare students' competencies regarding the application of evidence into practice. Such studies should be informed by current literature on the concepts (i.e., evidence-informed practice and evidence-based practice) to identify the differences, similarities, as well as appropriate content of the educational interventions. In this way, the actual effect of each of the concepts could be determined and their effectiveness compared.

Over the past three decades, there has been increasing attention on improving healthcare quality, reliability, and ultimately, patient outcomes, through the provision of healthcare that that is influenced by the best available evidence, and devoid of rituals and tradition. The main purpose of this systematic review is to determine the differences and similarities, if any, between evidence-informed practice and evidence-based practice educational interventions; as well as the role each concept plays in the application of evidence into practice. In addition, the present systematic review aims to determine whether the two concepts act together, or individually to facilitate the effective application of evidence into practice. These aims will be achieved by exploring the effectiveness of evidence-informed practice educational interventions versus evidence-based practice educational interventions in improving the knowledge, attitudes, understanding, and behavior required for the effective application of evidence into practice among undergraduate pre-registered health and social care students.

Since the publication of "A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform" by the U.S. Department of Education in 1983, American higher education has faced the need to develop its own effective means of learning assessment to forestall the prospect of government-imposed standardized procedures. The latter potential may have moved closed last year, when Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings' Commission on the Future of Higher Education concluded that "higher education institutions should measure student learning using quality assessment data," and that "the results of student learning assessment, including value-added measurements that indicate how much students' skills have improved over time, should be made available to students and reported in the aggregate publicly." These recommendations have spurred activity involving increased development of standardized tests, challenges to accrediting bodies, and responses from major higher education associations. This article considers two of the many resultant questions that are shaping the national conversation: (1) Where are schools nationally in relation to the assessment of student learning? and (2) What should colleges and universities be doing to retain control of the evaluation of student learning?

Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) has joined campuses across the nation in identifying and assessing student learning outcomes. With its 20 schools, diverse populations, and multiple goals, how this urban institution managed to organize much of its work around six learning principles is a tale of both caution and triumph. This article tells the story of how the six Principles of Undergraduate Learning (PULs)--namely, Core Communication and Quantitative Skills; Critical Thinking; Integration and Application of Knowledge; Intellectual Depth, Breadth, and Adaptiveness; Understanding Society and Culture; Values and Ethics--came to be a central feature of undergraduate education at IUPUI.

Capstone experiences in higher education are not a new phenomenon. Indeed, for several decades, graduating seniors in a variety of disciplines from a wide range of institutions have participated in a course, program, or activity designed to facilitate their transition to the real world beyond the academy. It has been found that capstones provide an ideal opportunity to identify, assess, and document what students are learning and how effectively they can apply what they have learned to the problems facing them and society. In this article, the authors describe the campus-wide framework for baccalaureate capstone experiences developed by the Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI). The authors also outline several keys to capstone experiences that will help students and faculty maximize their experiences.

Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) is an urban public research-extensive institution located in downtown Indianapolis. In 1991, in preparation for the 1992 NCA accreditation visit, a newly-formed Council on Undergraduate Learning at IUPUI and the Academic Affairs Committee of the Faculty Council established a Commission on General Education to oversee development of a centrally coordinated approach to general education for undergraduates at IUPUI. At the time, general education was the responsibility of each school, and followed, primarily, a distributive model, wherein each school defined required areas, such as humanities, sciences, and social sciences, and then specified particular requirements within those defined areas. Bearing in mind both their initial charge to develop a centrally coordinated approach to general education and the NCA mandate to develop specific learning outcomes within the approach to general education, several members of the Commission on General Education attended the 1993 Lilly Endowment Workshop on the Liberal Arts. Out of that workshop, and in conjunction with several other campus committee conversations, the Commission initiated "a process approach" to general education. They set up a series of multi-disciplinary committees, day-long retreats, and town halls to explore fundamental values associated with general education. This process culminated in the IUPUI Principles of Undergraduate Learning (PULs). These PULs are significant not in their uniqueness--they are very similar to the undergraduate learning values in almost any institution of learning--but because that they are intended to permeate the undergraduate curriculum instead of being a set of courses or skills concentrated in a student's first two years of college. Students are expected not only to improve their level of competence in each of the PULs during their first and second years, but also to continue to improve their level of competence throughout their undergraduate learning experiences

Discusses why and how Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis created its electronic institutional portfolio. Describes the process and highlights missteps and insights. Focuses on how electronic institutional portfolios can become catalysts for change and institutional improvement, while also serving as multi-media self-studies for accountability and accreditation. (EV)

Presents two methods for assessing the scholarship of engagement at the institutional level: (1) Comprehensive Assessment of the Scholarship of Engagement (CASE), a systematic method that compiles information about service learning and community engagement, identifies campus strengths, and prioritizes planning areas; and (2) an institutional portfolio that provides a rich database of descriptive and evaluative information. (EV)