Yousefi-Nooraie Reza, Shakiba Behnam, Mortaz-Hedjri Soroush, Soroush Ahmad R
Center for Research Development, Sariati Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
J Eval Clin Pract. 2007 Aug;13(4):564-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2007.00755.x.
To determine the most important knowledge sources that can influence clinical practice and to cluster them in conceptual groups based on their relative importance.
Faculty members, fellows and residents of a large teaching tertiary care hospital were asked to rate the importance of different resources in their daily clinical practice and their understanding of some common terms from evidence-based medicine. The knowledge sources were distributed in a two-dimensional map using multidimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analysis.
A total of 250 of 320 recruited hospital staff returned the questionnaires. The most important resources in daily practice were English journals, text books and literature searching for faculty members, experience, text books and English journals for fellows and text books, experience and peers for residents. Regional journals were the least important resources for all study groups. About 62.7% of residents did not know the meaning of 'number needed to treat', 36.8%'confidence interval', 54.9%'confounding factor' and 44.6%'meta-analysis'. The percentages for faculty members were 41.3%, 37%, 42.2% and 39.1%. The knowledge sources were placed in four clusters in a point map derived from the multidimensional scaling process.
The dominance of the traditional information resources and experience-based medicine debate which is the consequence of traditional approaches to medical education may be one of the considerable barriers to the dissemination of evidence-based medicine in developing countries. The evidence-based clinical practice guidelines could be used as a useful passive-predigested source for busy clinicians to make informed decisions. A considerable Western bias may undermine the local research in developing world.
确定能够影响临床实践的最重要知识来源,并根据其相对重要性将它们归为不同的概念组。
一家大型教学三级医院的教员、研究员和住院医师被要求对不同资源在其日常临床实践中的重要性以及他们对循证医学中一些常用术语的理解进行评分。使用多维标度法和层次聚类分析法将知识来源分布在二维图中。
320名招募的医院工作人员中共有250人返回了问卷。日常实践中最重要的资源,对教员来说是英文期刊、教科书和文献检索;对研究员来说是经验、教科书和英文期刊;对住院医师来说是教科书、经验和同行。地区性期刊对所有研究组来说都是最不重要的资源。约62.7%的住院医师不知道“需治疗人数”的含义,36.8%不知道“置信区间”,54.9%不知道“混杂因素”,44.6%不知道“荟萃分析”。教员的相应比例分别为41.3%、37%、42.2%和39.1%。在多维标度法得出的点状图中,知识来源被分为四类。
传统信息资源的主导地位以及基于经验的医学争论,这是传统医学教育方法的结果,可能是发展中国家传播循证医学的一个重大障碍。循证临床实践指南可作为忙碌的临床医生做出明智决策的有用的被动预消化资源。相当程度的西方偏见可能会削弱发展中世界的本土研究。