↓ Skip to main content

Changes in physiotherapy students’ knowledge and perceptions of EBP from first year to graduation: a mixed methods study

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 (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
100 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
Changes in physiotherapy students’ knowledge and perceptions of EBP from first year to graduation: a mixed methods study
Published in
BMC Medical Education, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12909-018-1212-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maureen P. McEvoy, Lucy K. Lewis, Julie Luker

Abstract

Dedicated Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) courses are often included in health professional education programs. It is important to understand the effectiveness of this training. This study investigated EBP outcomes in entry-level physiotherapy students from baseline to completion of all EBP training (graduation). Mixed methods with an explanatory sequential design. Physiotherapy students completed two psychometrically-tested health professional EBP instruments at baseline and graduation. The Evidence-Based Practice Profile questionnaire collected self-reported data (Terminology, Confidence, Practice, Relevance, Sympathy), and the Knowledge of Research Evidence Competencies instrument collected objective data (Actual Knowledge). Focus groups with students were conducted at graduation to gain a deeper understanding of the factors impacting changes in students' EBP knowledge, attitudes, behaviour and competency. Descriptive statistics, paired t-tests, 95% CI and effect sizes (ES) were used to examine changes in outcome scores from baseline to graduation. Transcribed focus group data were analysed following a qualitative descriptive approach with thematic analysis. A second stage of merged data analysis for mixed methods studies was undertaken using side-by-side comparisons to explore quantitatively assessed EBP measures with participants' personal perceptions. Data were analysed from 56 participants who completed both instruments at baseline and graduation, and from 21 focus group participants. Large ES were reported across most outcomes: Relevance (ES 2.29, p ≤ 0.001), Practice (1.8, p ≤ 0.001), Confidence (1.67, p ≤ 0.001), Terminology (3.13, p ≤ 0.001) and Actual Knowledge (4.3, p ≤ 0.001). A medium ES was found for Sympathy (0.49, p = 0.008). Qualitative and quantitative findings mostly aligned but for statistical terminology, participants' self-reported understanding was disparate with focus group reported experiences. Qualitative findings highlighted the importance of providing relevant context and positive role models for students during EBP training. Following EBP training across an entry-level physiotherapy program, there were qualitative and significant quantitative changes in participants' knowledge and perceptions of EBP. The qualitative and quantitative findings were mainly well-aligned with the exception of the Terminology domain, where the qualitative findings did not support the strength of the effect reported quantitatively. The findings of this study have implications for the timing and content of EBP curricula in entry-level health professional programs.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 100 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 16%
Student > Bachelor 16 16%
Researcher 8 8%
Other 6 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 5%
Other 22 22%
Unknown 27 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 26 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 19 19%
Sports and Recreations 7 7%
Psychology 4 4%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Other 10 10%
Unknown 30 30%

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 30 May 2018.
All research outputs
#3,787,395
of 14,383,792 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#696
of 2,111 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,206
of 275,820 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,383,792 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 2,111 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 275,820 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them