Knowledge, attitudes, behavior, and self-efficacy related to evidence-based practice among healthcare professionals working in the municipal healthcare service in Norway: a cross-sectional survey.

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES BMC Health Services Research Pub Date : 2024-10-15 DOI:10.1186/s12913-024-11723-4
Nils Gunnar Landsverk, Nina Rydland Olsen, Therese Brovold
{"title":"Knowledge, attitudes, behavior, and self-efficacy related to evidence-based practice among healthcare professionals working in the municipal healthcare service in Norway: a cross-sectional survey.","authors":"Nils Gunnar Landsverk, Nina Rydland Olsen, Therese Brovold","doi":"10.1186/s12913-024-11723-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Practicing the process of evidence-based practice (EBP) may be challenging for healthcare professionals and may be affected by their EBP knowledge, attitudes, self-efficacy, and behavior. We have some insight into how Norwegian healthcare professionals and students perceive EBP. However, research on the perception of EBP among primary healthcare professionals working in the Norwegian municipal health service is lacking. This study aimed to map EBP knowledge, attitudes, behavior, and self-efficacy among healthcare professionals working with older people in the municipal health service in Norway and to examine associations between how they score and their background characteristics.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A cross-sectional web-based survey was conducted among healthcare professionals in the Norwegian municipal healthcare service. We used the revised Norwegian version of the Evidence-based practice profile questionnaire (EBP<sup>2</sup>-N) to measure the healthcare professionals' EBP knowledge, attitudes, behavior, and self-efficacy, operationalized through the five domains of the EBP<sup>2</sup>-N. We calculated the mean scores for each EBP domain across the total sample and for each subgroup of healthcare professionals. We used a one-way between-groups analysis of variance (ANOVA) to analyze the differences in mean scores between the professions. We also calculated eta-squared values to determine effect size. We used linear regression analyses to examine associations with background variables.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 313 healthcare professionals, including nurses, assistant nurses, physical therapists, occupational therapists, and medical doctors, responded to the survey. The total sample scored the highest on the relevance domain, with a mean domain score of 58.9 (95% CI = 58.1-59.7) on a scale ranging from 14 to 70. The practice domain had the lowest score, with a mean domain score of 22.2 (95% CI = 20.8-21.6) on a scale ranging from 9 to 45. Statistically significant differences in mean scores were found between professions in all domains except the confidence domain. The most considerable differences between professions' mean scores were found for the relevance and terminology domains, with eta-squared values of 0.13 and 0.19, respectively. The multivariate regression results showed that EBP training was significantly associated with the sum score of the relevance, terminology, and confidence domain. However, EBP training was not associated with the sum score of the practice and sympathy domains.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Primary healthcare professionals in the Norwegian municipal healthcare service hold positive attitudes toward EBP. However, they report a low understanding of research terms, low self-efficacy in performing EBP activities, a lack of perceived compatibility of EBP with professional work, and a low frequency of EBP behavior. Additionally, we observed differences among the included professions in four out of five domains, suggesting that various professions may be unequally prepared for EBP. Finally, our results indicate potential positive outcomes of EBP training. Those who received EBP training exhibited more positive attitudes, a better understanding of common research terms, and higher self-efficacy in performing EBP activities. However, EBP training was not associated with their self-reported EBP behavior.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>Retrospectively registered (prior to data analysis) in OSF Preregistration. Registration DOI: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/428RP .</p>","PeriodicalId":9012,"journal":{"name":"BMC Health Services Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11476601/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Health Services Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11723-4","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Practicing the process of evidence-based practice (EBP) may be challenging for healthcare professionals and may be affected by their EBP knowledge, attitudes, self-efficacy, and behavior. We have some insight into how Norwegian healthcare professionals and students perceive EBP. However, research on the perception of EBP among primary healthcare professionals working in the Norwegian municipal health service is lacking. This study aimed to map EBP knowledge, attitudes, behavior, and self-efficacy among healthcare professionals working with older people in the municipal health service in Norway and to examine associations between how they score and their background characteristics.

Methods: A cross-sectional web-based survey was conducted among healthcare professionals in the Norwegian municipal healthcare service. We used the revised Norwegian version of the Evidence-based practice profile questionnaire (EBP2-N) to measure the healthcare professionals' EBP knowledge, attitudes, behavior, and self-efficacy, operationalized through the five domains of the EBP2-N. We calculated the mean scores for each EBP domain across the total sample and for each subgroup of healthcare professionals. We used a one-way between-groups analysis of variance (ANOVA) to analyze the differences in mean scores between the professions. We also calculated eta-squared values to determine effect size. We used linear regression analyses to examine associations with background variables.

Results: A total of 313 healthcare professionals, including nurses, assistant nurses, physical therapists, occupational therapists, and medical doctors, responded to the survey. The total sample scored the highest on the relevance domain, with a mean domain score of 58.9 (95% CI = 58.1-59.7) on a scale ranging from 14 to 70. The practice domain had the lowest score, with a mean domain score of 22.2 (95% CI = 20.8-21.6) on a scale ranging from 9 to 45. Statistically significant differences in mean scores were found between professions in all domains except the confidence domain. The most considerable differences between professions' mean scores were found for the relevance and terminology domains, with eta-squared values of 0.13 and 0.19, respectively. The multivariate regression results showed that EBP training was significantly associated with the sum score of the relevance, terminology, and confidence domain. However, EBP training was not associated with the sum score of the practice and sympathy domains.

Conclusions: Primary healthcare professionals in the Norwegian municipal healthcare service hold positive attitudes toward EBP. However, they report a low understanding of research terms, low self-efficacy in performing EBP activities, a lack of perceived compatibility of EBP with professional work, and a low frequency of EBP behavior. Additionally, we observed differences among the included professions in four out of five domains, suggesting that various professions may be unequally prepared for EBP. Finally, our results indicate potential positive outcomes of EBP training. Those who received EBP training exhibited more positive attitudes, a better understanding of common research terms, and higher self-efficacy in performing EBP activities. However, EBP training was not associated with their self-reported EBP behavior.

Trial registration: Retrospectively registered (prior to data analysis) in OSF Preregistration. Registration DOI: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/428RP .

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在挪威市级医疗保健服务机构工作的医疗保健专业人员与循证实践相关的知识、态度、行为和自我效能:一项横断面调查。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Health Services Research
BMC Health Services Research 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
7.10%
发文量
1372
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: BMC Health Services Research is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of health services research, including delivery of care, management of health services, assessment of healthcare needs, measurement of outcomes, allocation of healthcare resources, evaluation of different health markets and health services organizations, international comparative analysis of health systems, health economics and the impact of health policies and regulations.
期刊最新文献
Employer support for health and social care registered professionals, their patients and service users involved in regulatory fitness to practise regulatory proceedings. Factors influencing the turnover intention for disease control and prevention workers in Northeast China: an empirical analysis based on logistic-ISM model. Qualitative drivers of postoperative prophylactic antibiotics use and resistance in Ethiopia. Supporting young people through the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond: a multi-site qualitative longitudinal study. The potential promise and pitfalls of point-of-care viral load monitoring to expedite HIV treatment decision-making in rural Uganda: a qualitative study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1