Evidence based practice profiles: Differences among allied health professions

• Published in: BMC medical education Vol. 10; no. 1; p. 69
• Main Authors: McEvoy, Maureen P, Williams, Marie T, Olds, Timothy S
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: London BioMed Central 12.10.2010; BioMed Central Ltd; BMC
• Subjects: Adolescent; Adult; Allied Health Occupations; Allied Health Occupations - statistics & numerical data; Allied health professions; Analysis of Variance; Attitudes; Clinical medicine; College students; Comparative analysis; Cross-Sectional Studies; Curricula; Data collection; Discipline; Education; Educational Measurement; Educational Status; Evidence-based medicine; Evidence-Based Practice - statistics & numerical data; Female; Gender; Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice; Health sciences; Humans; Influence; Learning; Likert scale; Male; Medical Education; Medical personnel; Middle Aged; Practice; Professional Competence - statistics & numerical data; Professions; Psychometrics; Questionnaires; Research Article; Research Methodology; Skills; Statistics as Topic; Studies; Surveys and Questionnaires; Theory of Medicine/Bioethics; Training; Undergraduate Students; Young Adult; Occupational Therapy; Evidence Base Practice; Academic Staff; Occupational Therapist; Medical Radiation
• ISSN: 1472-6920; 1472-6920
• DOI: 10.1186/1472-6920-10-69

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 Sympathy (p ≤ 0.023). Conclusions Across five allied health professions, self-report EBP characteristics varied with EBP exposure, across stages of training, with profession and with age.