27
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Evidence-based medicine and the practicing clinician.

      Journal of General Internal Medicine
      Adult, Attitude of Health Personnel, Chi-Square Distribution, Cross-Sectional Studies, Decision Making, Evidence-Based Medicine, Female, Humans, Internal Medicine, Male, Middle Aged, Questionnaires

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          To assess the attitudes of practicing general internists toward evidence-based medicine (EBM-defined as the process of systematically finding, appraising, and using contemporaneous research findings as the basis for clinical decisions) and their perceived barriers to its use. Cross-sectional, self-administered mail questionnaire conducted between June and October 1997. Canada. Questionnaires were sent to all 521 physician members of the Canadian Society of Internal Medicine with Canadian mailing addresses; 296 (60%) of 495 eligible physicians responded. Exclusion of two incomplete surveys resulted in a final sample size of 294. Mean age of respondents was 46 years, 80% were male, and 52% worked in large urban medical centers. Participants reported using EBM in their clinical practice always (33, 11%), often (173, 59%), sometimes (80, 27%), or rarely/never (8, 3%). There were no significant differences in demographics, training, or practice types or locales on univariate or multivariate analyses between those who reported using EBM often or always and those who did not. Both groups reported high usage of traditional (non-EBM) information sources: clinical experience (93%), review articles (73%), the opinion of colleagues (61%), and textbooks (45%). Only a minority used EBM-related information sources such as primary research studies (45%), clinical practice guidelines (27%), or Cochrane Collaboration Reviews (5%) on a regular basis. Barriers to the use of EBM cited by respondents included lack of relevant evidence (26%), newness of the concept (25%), impracticality for use in day-to-day practice (14%), and negative impact on traditional medical skills and "the art of medicine" (11%). Less than half of respondents were confident in basic skills of EBM such as conducting a literature search (46%) or evaluating the methodology of published studies (34%). However, respondents demonstrated a high level of interest in further education about these tasks. The likelihood that physicians will incorporate EBM into their practice cannot be predicted by any demographic or practice-related factors. Even those physicians who are most enthusiastic about EBM rely more on traditional information sources than EBM-related sources. The most important barriers to increased use of EBM by practicing clinicians appear to be lack of knowledge and familiarity with the basic skills, rather than skepticism about the concept.

          Related collections

          Most cited references14

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Evidence-Based Medicine

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The medical review article: state of the science.

            C D Mulrow (1987)
            Fifty reviews published during June 1985 to June 1986 in four major medical journals were assessed in a study of the methods of current review articles. Assessments were based on eight explicit criteria adapted from published guidelines for information syntheses. Of the 50 articles, 17 satisfied three of the eight criteria; 32 satisfied four or five criteria; and 1 satisfied six criteria. Most reviews had clearly specified purposes (n = 40) and conclusions (n = 37). Only one had clearly specified methods of identifying, selecting, and validating included information. Qualitative synthesis was often used to integrate information included in the review (n = 43); quantitative synthesis was rarely used (n = 3). Future research directives were mentioned in 21. These results indicate that current medical reviews do not routinely use scientific methods to identify, assess, and synthesize information. The methods used in this systematic assessment of reviews are proposed to improve the quality of future review articles.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Information needs in office practice: are they being met?

              We studied the self-reported information needs of 47 physicians during a half day of typical office practice. The physicians raised 269 questions about patient management. Questions related to all medical specialties and were highly specific to the individual patient's problem. Subspecialists most frequently asked questions related to other subspecialties. Only 30% of physicians' information needs were met during the patient visit, usually by another physician or other health professional. Reasons print sources were not used included the age of textbooks in the office, poor organization of journal articles, inadequate indexing of books and drug information sources, lack of knowledge of an appropriate source, and the time required to find the desired information. Better methods are needed to provide answers to questions that arise in office practice.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                10203636
                1496564
                10.1046/j.1525-1497.1999.00323.x

                Chemistry
                Adult,Attitude of Health Personnel,Chi-Square Distribution,Cross-Sectional Studies,Decision Making,Evidence-Based Medicine,Female,Humans,Internal Medicine,Male,Middle Aged,Questionnaires

                Comments

                Comment on this article