Effects of an evidence-based medicine workshop on Japanese pharmacy students’ awareness regarding the importance of reading current clinical literature

Naoto Nakagawa, Yuriko Murai, Makiko Yoshida, Hiroyuki Suzuki, Nariyasu Mano

Drug literature evaluation has been taught at pharmacy schools in the United States, allowing pharmacy students to learn how to read clinical literature critically. In advanced pharmacy practice experiences, preceptors often assign pharmacy students to journal clubs in which they repeatedly train how to read such literature. This enables them to understand the importance of reading clinical literature prior to graduation. The objective of this study was to create evidence-based medicine (EBM) workshop that would enhance Japanese pharmacy students' awareness regarding the importance of reading up-to-date clinical literature. The EBM workshop were designed as a one-day workshop consisting of student presentations regarding their opinions about reading clinical literature, a lecture on methods for reading required literature critically, and small group discussions using the KJ (Kawakita Jiro) Method. To evaluate the effectiveness of the EBM workshop, students were administered questionnaire surveys both before and after the workshop. The students also took a 15-question test on EBM. Regarding the questionnaires, students were asked to respond to dichotomous items (yes/no) and to indicate on a 7-point Likert scale the extent to which they agreed with statements about clinical literature. Student responses to both the pre- and post-workshop questionnaires were then compared to evaluate the effectiveness of the EBM workshop. A total of 37 students participated in the EBM workshop. Significant improvement was seen between the pre- and post-workshop questionnaires in responses regarding whether they thought that pharmacists should read clinical literature regularly (pre-workshop: 5.70 ± 0.17 versus 6.51 ± 0.13 post-workshop; p < 0.0001), whether they were confident in their ability to read clinical literature (1.81 ± 0.15 versus 3.92 ± 0.18; p < 0.0001), and whether they could discuss treatment with nurses and physicians based on the results of clinical literature if they were a hospital pharmacist (2.49 ± 0.22 versus 3.86 ± 0.21; p < 0.0001). Significant improvement was also seen in scores on the EBM tests (11.4 ± 0.29 versus 12.6 ± 0.22; p < 0.0001). Our EBM workshop significantly enhanced student awareness regarding the importance of reading up-to-date clinical literature. It is therefore expected that students who participated in our EBM workshop will contribute to improvements in the quality of the pharmacy profession in the future.