↓ Skip to main content

Assessing competency in Evidence Based Practice: strengths and limitations of current tools in practice

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, August 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
89 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
248 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Assessing competency in Evidence Based Practice: strengths and limitations of current tools in practice
Published in
BMC Medical Education, August 2009
DOI 10.1186/1472-6920-9-53
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dragan Ilic

Abstract

Evidence Based Practice (EBP) involves making clinical decisions informed by the most relevant and valid evidence available. Competence can broadly be defined as a concept that incorporates a variety of domains including knowledge, skills and attitudes. Adopting an evidence-based approach to practice requires differing competencies across various domains including literature searching, critical appraisal and communication. This paper examines the current tools available to assess EBP competence and compares their applicability to existing assessment techniques used in medicine, nursing and health sciences.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 248 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 2%
Brazil 4 2%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Pakistan 1 <1%
Other 2 <1%
Unknown 229 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 35 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 12%
Student > Bachelor 24 10%
Lecturer 19 8%
Professor 18 7%
Other 88 35%
Unknown 35 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 79 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 43 17%
Social Sciences 32 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 3%
Psychology 8 3%
Other 38 15%
Unknown 40 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 November 2014.
All research outputs
#13,720,884
of 22,769,322 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#1,827
of 3,306 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,861
of 110,983 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#7
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,769,322 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,306 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 110,983 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.