International Centre for Allied Health Evidence, University of South Australia, North Terrace, Adelaide, 5000, Australia.
BMC Med Educ. 2011 Sep 23;11:66. doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-11-66.
Research evidence suggests that journal clubs (JCs) are one approach which can be used to bridge the gap between research and clinical practice. However, there are issues which potentially threaten their viability such as on-going participation or compliance with attendance, which require further exploration. The objectives of this study are: to explore the views and perspectives of allied health practitioners (AHPs) regarding the use of any type of JC in promoting evidence-based practice (EBP); to identify ways in which an innovative model of JC developed by the International Centre for Allied Health Evidence (iCAHE) might be refined.
A qualitative descriptive study utilising focus group interviews with various groups of AHP was undertaken-- those who have been exposed to the iCAHE JC model and those who have no experience of the iCAHE model (although they may have had exposure to other forms of JC). Maximum variation sampling was used to recruit participants for the study. Transcripts of focus groups were coded and distilled into content-related categories.
Six focus groups with 39 AHPs were facilitated. Allied health practitioners perspectives' on JCs were classified in five broad categories: utility and benefits of a JC, elements of an effective and sustainable JC, barriers to participation, incentives for participation, and opportunities for improvement in the current iCAHE JC model. Overall, JCs were seen as a forum for reflective practice and keeping up-to-date with research evidence, and a venue for learning the processes involved in critical appraisal. Limited knowledge of statistics and heavy clinical workload were reported as barriers to participation in a JC. Strategies such as mentoring, strong support from managers, and providing CPD (continuing professional development) points can potentially address these barriers. Opportunities for refinement of the current iCAHE model were raised.
This study suggests that a structured model of JC such as iCAHE's model is acceptable, and likely to be used with enthusiasm by AHP to achieve EBP. Future research should explore the impact of iCAHE JC compared with no JC exposure, and other forms of exposure to JCs, in influencing change in allied health practitioners behaviours and evidence implementation.
研究证据表明，期刊俱乐部（JC）是一种可以用来弥合研究与临床实践之间差距的方法。然而，存在一些潜在的威胁其可行性的问题，例如持续参与或遵守出勤，这需要进一步探讨。本研究的目的是：探讨辅助卫生专业人员（AHPs）对使用任何类型的 JC 促进循证实践（EBP）的看法和观点；确定国际辅助卫生证据中心（iCAHE）开发的创新 JC 模式可以改进的方式。
采用焦点小组访谈的定性描述性研究，对接触过 iCAHE JC 模式和没有接触过 iCAHE 模式（尽管他们可能接触过其他形式的 JC）的各种 AHPs 进行了访谈。采用最大变异抽样法招募研究参与者。对焦点小组的记录进行编码，并提炼为与内容相关的类别。
共进行了六次焦点小组访谈，共有 39 名 AHPs 参与。AHPs 对 JC 的看法分为五类：JC 的效用和益处、有效和可持续 JC 的要素、参与障碍、参与激励因素以及当前 iCAHE JC 模式的改进机会。总体而言，JC 被视为一种反思实践和了解研究证据的论坛，也是学习批判性评估过程的场所。有限的统计学知识和繁重的临床工作量被报告为参与 JC 的障碍。诸如指导、经理的大力支持以及提供 CPD（继续专业发展）点等策略可能会解决这些障碍。提出了对当前 iCAHE 模型进行改进的机会。
本研究表明，像 iCAHE 这样的结构化 JC 模式是可以接受的，并且可能会受到 AHPs 的热烈欢迎，以实现 EBP。未来的研究应探讨 iCAHE JC 与无 JC 暴露以及其他形式的 JC 暴露相比，在影响辅助卫生从业人员行为和证据实施方面的影响。
