Evidence-based practice in neonatal health: knowledge among primary health care staff in northern Viet Nam

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>An estimated four million deaths occur each year among children in the neonatal period. Current evidence-based interventions could prevent a large proportion of these deaths. However, health care workers involved in neonatal care need to have knowledge regarding such practices before being able to put them into action.</p> <p>The aim of this survey was to assess the knowledge of primary health care practitioners regarding basic, evidence-based procedures in neonatal care in a Vietnamese province. A further aim was to investigate whether differences in level of knowledge were linked to certain characteristics of community health centres, such as access to national guidelines in reproductive health care, number of assisted deliveries and geographical location.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This cross-sectional survey was completed within a baseline study preparing for an intervention study on knowledge translation (Implementing knowledge into practice for improved neonatal survival: a community-based trial in Quang Ninh province, Viet Nam, the NeoKIP project, ISRCTN44599712). Sixteen multiple-choice questions from five basic areas of evidence-based practice in neonatal care were distributed to 155 community health centres in 12 districts in a Vietnamese province, reaching 412 primary health care workers.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>All health care workers approached for the survey responded. Overall, they achieved 60% of the maximum score of the questionnaire. Staff level of knowledge on evidence-based practice was linked to the geographical location of the CHC, but not to access to the national guidelines or the number of deliveries at the community level. Two separated geographical areas were identified with differences in staff level of knowledge and concurrent differences in neonatal survival, antenatal care and postnatal home visits.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>We have identified a complex pattern of associations between knowledge, geography, demographic factors and neonatal outcomes. Primary health care staff knowledge regarding neonatal health is scarce. This is a factor that is possible to influence and should be considered in future efforts for improving the neonatal health situation in Viet Nam.</p

A systematic review of the psychometric properties of self-report research utilization measures used in healthcare

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In healthcare, a gap exists between what is known from research and what is practiced. Understanding this gap depends upon our ability to robustly measure research utilization.</p> <p>Objectives</p> <p>The objectives of this systematic review were: to identify self-report measures of research utilization used in healthcare, and to assess the psychometric properties (acceptability, reliability, and validity) of these measures.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted a systematic review of literature reporting use or development of self-report research utilization measures. Our search included: multiple databases, ancestry searches, and a hand search. Acceptability was assessed by examining time to complete the measure and missing data rates. Our approach to reliability and validity assessment followed that outlined in the <it>Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing</it>.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of 42,770 titles screened, 97 original studies (108 articles) were included in this review. The 97 studies reported on the use or development of 60 unique self-report research utilization measures. Seven of the measures were assessed in more than one study. Study samples consisted of healthcare providers (92 studies) and healthcare decision makers (5 studies). No studies reported data on acceptability of the measures. Reliability was reported in 32 (33%) of the studies, representing 13 of the 60 measures. Internal consistency (Cronbach's Alpha) reliability was reported in 31 studies; values exceeded 0.70 in 29 studies. Test-retest reliability was reported in 3 studies with Pearson's <it>r </it>coefficients > 0.80. No validity information was reported for 12 of the 60 measures. The remaining 48 measures were classified into a three-level validity hierarchy according to the number of validity sources reported in 50% or more of the studies using the measure. Level one measures (n = 6) reported evidence from any three (out of four possible) <it>Standards </it>validity sources (which, in the case of single item measures, was all applicable validity sources). Level two measures (n = 16) had evidence from any two validity sources, and level three measures (n = 26) from only one validity source.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>This review reveals significant underdevelopment in the measurement of research utilization. Substantial methodological advances with respect to construct clarity, use of research utilization and related theory, use of measurement theory, and psychometric assessment are required. Also needed are improved reporting practices and the adoption of a more contemporary view of validity (<it>i.e.</it>, the <it>Standards</it>) in future research utilization measurement studies.</p