RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Fostering a culture of clinical effectiveness among healthcare professionals (HCPs) is crucial to achieving optimal patient health outcomes. To our knowledge, there is a lack of robust evidence-based practice (EBP) tools to assess the competence of HCPs in EBP in the Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMR). AIM: This study aims to comprehensively investigate the construct validity and internal reliability of the evidence-based practice questionnaire (EBPQ) among HCPs in the EMR. METHODS: This multinational and multi-disciplinary cross-sectional study was conducted between 27 April and 11 May 2023. Convenience and snowball sampling methods were used to recruit a sample of HCPs (physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, dentists, and pharmacists) using an electronic survey questionnaire for data capture. To assess the reliability of the instrument, Cronbach's alpha, inter-item reliability, and split-half reliability analyses were conducted. Furthermore, the convergent and discriminant validity of the questionnaire was ensured by calculating the average variance extracted (AVE) and the correlation coefficient between the different constructs, respectively. Factor loadings and cross-loadings of different indicators within each construct were calculated by performing both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. RESULTS: A total of 1536 HCPs from 18 countries in the EMR (response rate = 96.786%) with a median age of 28 years participated; 47% were female, and 55% had Arabic as their first language. English was the most common language for a bachelor's degree in science (54%). The construct validity of the EBPQ was investigated using exploratory factor analysis (EFA), which yielded four loaded factors. The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) confirmed the four loaded factors. The CFA model showed that the root mean square error of approximation = 0.066, comparative fit index = 0.95, Tucker-Lewis's index = 0.94, standardized root mean square residual = 0.033, normal fit index = 0.94, goodness of fit = 0.91, and χ2 test statistic= 22,553, with p < 0.001. The AVE values of the four factors were close to 1 (knowledge = 0.6, practice = 0.6, attitude = 0.5, and sharing = 0.7), thus supporting the convergent validity of the EBPQ. The four domains had Cronbach's alpha coefficients and Omega ≥ 0.7 (knowledge = 0.9, practice = 0.9, attitude = 0.7, and sharing = 0.8), suggesting that the items within each domain had good internal consistency. These results support the discriminant validity of the EBPQ. CONCLUSIONS: The EBPQ is a robust questionnaire that can be completed in less than 10 min by EMR HCPs and can be used as a gold-standard questionnaire to collect valid data on the attitudes, knowledge, and proficiency of HCPs in making clinical decisions based on evidence. Future studies are recommended to investigate the retest reliability.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Evidence-based practice is vital for the provision of high-quality and safe healthcare. However, a rigorous, standardised, and unified evidence-based practice measure that could be applied to Arabic-speaking undergraduate students did not exist prior to this study. Moreover, translating questionnaires requires considerable time and money. OBJECTIVES: Thus, this study aimed to investigate the psychometric properties of the Student Evidence-Based Practice Questionnaire (English version) among Arabic-speaking undergraduate students at health sciences colleges in Saudi Arabia. DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey was adopted. SETTINGS: The survey was conducted online over a six-month period. PARTICIPANTS: A convenience sample of 395 undergraduate nursing students was recruited from health sciences colleges at seven universities in Saudi Arabia. METHODS: The students were requested to complete the survey, including the Student Evidence-Based Practice Questionnaire, as well as a background and academic data sheet. Construct validity, discriminant sensitivity, and internal reliability were evaluated. RESULTS: An exploratory factor analysis was performed. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin test value was 0.901, which was higher than the acceptable value of 0.70, indicating the adequacy of the sample size. Bartlett's test of sphericity was significant (chi-square (df: 210) = 4768.818, p < .001), indicating significant correlations within the variables and matrix. Based on Kaiser's criterion with eigenvalues > 1, four factors were detected that explained 62.03 % of the variance. The exploratory factor analysis of the 21 items generated factor loadings from 0.64 to 0.87. The Student Evidence-Based Practice Questionnaire has discriminant validity. The Cronbach's alpha and split-half reliability were over 0.7, indicating that the questionnaire had good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.922). No evidence for floor or ceiling effects was observed. CONCLUSIONS: The English version of the Student Evidence-Based Practice Questionnaire has a satisfactory validity and reliability level and can be used among Arabic-speaking undergraduate students without the need to translate it into Arabic.
Asunto(s)
Bachillerato en Enfermería , Estudiantes de Enfermería , Estudios Transversales , Práctica Clínica Basada en la Evidencia , Humanos , Psicometría , Reproducibilidad de los Resultados , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , UniversidadesRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The use of Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) is increasingly emphasized within healthcare. However, little research has focused on nurses' pre-registration training; particularly regarding the impact of curriculum-design on learning EBP. OBJECTIVES: This study compared the impact of embedding EBP throughout the curriculum, with modular-based teaching, on pre-registration nursing students' EBP profiles. DESIGN: A longitudinal panel study. SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: A convenience sample of fifty-six pre-registration nursing students (55.4% studying an embedded EBP-curriculum and 44.6% studying a modular EBP-curriculum), were recruited from a UK University between 2011 and 2014. METHODS: Participants completed the Student Evidence-Based Practice Questionnaire (S-EBPQ) in the first, second and third year of their course. This questionnaire measures four EBP domains: frequency of use, attitude, knowledge and skills in retrieving and reviewing evidence, and knowledge and skills in applying and sharing evidence. RESULTS: Two-way mixed between-within Analyses of Variance revealed significant improvements across all domains, except attitude (which remained broadly positive across all years), for both curriculum-groups. No significant differences in this improvement were identified between the two curricula overall. However, the direction and rate of change of scores on the retrieving and applying subscales (but not frequency of use) for the two groups differed across time; specifically those on the embedded curriculum showed a dip in scores on these subscales in year 2. This appeared to be related to associated features of the course such as the timing of placements and delivery of theory. CONCLUSIONS: Taking a modular or embedded approach to EBP may have little impact on students' final EBP profiles. However, careful consideration should be given to the timing of related course features which may play a key role in students' perceptions of their knowledge and skills in its application. Further research should explore how curriculum-design might build on students' initial positive attitudes towards EBP and its use in their practice.