↓ Skip to main content

The effectiveness and feasibility of TREAT (Tailoring Research Evidence and Theory) journal clubs in allied health: a randomised controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 Mendeley
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
The effectiveness and feasibility of TREAT (Tailoring Research Evidence and Theory) journal clubs in allied health: a randomised controlled trial
Published in
BMC Medical Education, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12909-018-1198-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rachel J. Wenke, Rae Thomas, Ian Hughes, Sharon Mickan

Abstract

Journal clubs (JC) may increase clinicians' evidence-based practice (EBP) skills and facilitate evidence uptake in clinical practice, however there is a lack of research into their effectiveness in allied health. We investigated the effectiveness of a structured JC that is Tailored According to Research Evidence And Theory (TREAT) in improving EBP skills and practice compared to a standard JC format for allied health professionals. Concurrently, we explored the feasibility of implementing TREAT JCs in a healthcare setting, by evaluating participating clinicians' perceptions and satisfaction. We conducted an explanatory mixed methods study involving a cluster randomised controlled trial with a nested focus group for the intervention participants. Nine JCs with 126 allied health participants were randomly allocated to receive either the TREAT or standard JC format for 1 h/month for 6 months. We conducted pre-post measures of EBP skills and attitudes using the EBP questionnaire and Assessing Competence in Evidence-Based Medicine tool and a tailored satisfaction and practice change questionnaire. Post-intervention, we also conducted a focus group with TREAT participants to explore their perceptions of the format. There were no significant differences between JC formats in EBP skills, knowledge or attitudes or influence on clinical practice, with participants maintaining intermediate level skills across time points. Participants reported significantly greater satisfaction with the organisation of the TREAT format. Participants in both groups reported positive changes to clinical practice. Perceived outcomes to the TREAT format and facilitating mechanisms were identified including the use of an academic facilitator, group appraisal approach and consistent appraisal tools which assisted skill development and engagement. It is feasible to implement an evidence-based JC for allied health clinicians. While clinicians were more satisfied with the TREAT format, it did not significantly improve their EBP skills, attitudes, knowledge and/or practice, when compared to the standard format. The use of an academic facilitator, group based critical appraisal, and the consistent use of appraisal tools were perceived as useful components of the JC format. A structured JC may maintain EBP skills in allied health clinicians and facilitate engagement, however additional training may be required to further enhance EBP skills. ACTRN12616000811404 Retrospectively registered 21 June 2016.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 66 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 14%
Student > Bachelor 9 14%
Student > Master 7 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 8%
Professor 3 5%
Other 12 18%
Unknown 21 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 18 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 17%
Arts and Humanities 3 5%
Psychology 3 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 23 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 18 March 2020.
All research outputs
#6,179,941
of 23,047,237 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#1,010
of 3,373 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,389
of 327,425 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#30
of 102 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,047,237 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,373 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its peers.
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 327,425 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 102 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.