↓ Skip to main content

The design, fate and impact of a hospital-wide training program in evidence-based medicine for physicians – an observational study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 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 design, fate and impact of a hospital-wide training program in evidence-based medicine for physicians – an observational study
Published in
BMC Medical Education, March 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12909-016-0601-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Johan Thor, Daniel Olsson, Jörgen Nordenström

Abstract

Many doctors fail to practice Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) effectively, in part due to insufficient training. We report on the design, fate and impact of a short learner-centered EBM train-the-trainer program aimed at all 2400 doctors at the Karolinska University Hospital in Sweden on the heels of a tumultuous merger, focusing particularly on whether it affected the doctors' knowledge, attitudes and skills regarding EBM. We used a validated EBM instrument in a before-and-after design to assess the impact of the training. Changes in responses were analyzed at the individual level using the Wilcoxon matched pairs test. We also reviewed documentation from the program - including the modular EBM training schedule and the template for participants' Critically Appraised Topic reports - to describe the training's content, design, conduct, and fate. The training, designed to be delivered in modules of 45 min totaling 1.5 days, failed to reach most doctors at the hospital, due to cost cutting pressures and competing demands. Among study participants (n = 174), many reported suboptimal EBM knowledge and skills before the training. Respondents' strategies for solving clinical problems changed after the training: the proportion of respondents reporting to use (or intend to use) secondary sources "Often/very often" changed from 5 % before the training to 76 % after the training; in parallel, reliance on textbooks and on colleagues fell (48 to 23 % and 79 to 65 %, respectively). Participants' confidence in assessing scientific articles increased and their attitudes toward EBM became more positive. The proportion of correct answers in the EBM knowledge test increased from 52 to 71 %. All these changes were statistically significant at p < 0.05. Many study participants, despite working at a university hospital, lacked basic EBM knowledge and skills and used the scientific literature suboptimally. The kind of short learner-centered EBM training evaluated here brought significant improvements among the minority of hospital doctors who were able to participate and, if applied widely, could contribute to better, safer and more cost-effective care.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 21%
Student > Master 7 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 13 25%
Unknown 11 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 9%
Psychology 5 9%
Social Sciences 5 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 8%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 14 26%
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 11 August 2016.
All research outputs
#15,536,359
of 25,077,376 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#2,157
of 3,896 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#159,522
of 305,623 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#49
of 83 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,077,376 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,896 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 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 305,623 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 83 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.