Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access Evidence based practice profiles: Differences

By Maureen P Mcevoy, Marie T Williams and Timothy S Olds

Abstract

Background: Most previous studies of allied health professionals ’ evidence based practice (EBP) attitudes, knowledge and behaviours have been conducted with profession specific questionnaires of variable psychometric strength. This study compared the self-report EBP profiles of allied health professionals/trainees in an Australian university. Methods: The Evidence-Based Practice Profile (EBP 2) questionnaire assessed five domains (Relevance, Terminology, Practice, Confidence, Sympathy) in 918 subjects from five professional disciplines. One and 2-way factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) and t-tests analysed differences based on prior exposure to EBP, stage of training, professional discipline, age and gender. Results: There were significant differences between stages of training (p < 0.001) for all domains and between EBP exposure groups for all but one domain (Sympathy). Professional discipline groups differed for Relevance, Terminology, Practice (p < 0.001) and Confidence (p = 0.006). Males scored higher for Confidence (p = 0.002) and females for Sympathy (p = 0.04), older subjects (> 24 years) scored higher for all domains (p < 0.05). Age and exposure affected all domains (p < 0.02). Differences in stages of training largely explained age-related differences in Confidence and Practice (p ≤ 0.001) and exposure-related differences in Confidence, Practice and Sympath

Year: 2013
OAI identifier: oai:CiteSeerX.psu:10.1.1.352.138
Provided by: CiteSeerX
Download PDF:
Sorry, we are unable to provide the full text but you may find it at the following location(s):
  • http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v... (external link)
  • ftp://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub... (external link)
  • Suggested articles


    To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.