Lizarondo Lucylynn, Grimmer Karen, Kumar Saravana
International Center for Allied Health Evidence, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Adv Med Educ Pract. 2013 Mar 31;4:43-53. doi: 10.2147/AMEP.S43420. Print 2013.
A recent trial which examined the impact of a structured model of journal club (JC) demonstrated variability in evidence-based practice (EBP) outcomes across allied health disciplines. The aim of the current study was to determine if there are individual practitioner characteristics that could explain this variability and identify potential predictors of EBP outcomes.
This exploratory study used the data obtained from the JC trial. The predictive value of practitioner-related variables including academic degree, previous exposure to EBP training, and previous research involvement was analyzed using univariate logistic regression models. The dose of intervention was also included in the exploratory analysis.
The change in self-reported knowledge, evidence uptake, and attitude following participation in a JC was influenced by individual practitioner characteristics including their discipline, academic background, previous EBP training, previous research involvement, and JC attendance. Improvement in objective knowledge did not seem to be affected by any of these variables. Whether these individual characteristics have the ability to predict who will achieve less than, or greater than, 50% change in knowledge, attitude, and evidence uptake, is not known, except for academic background which predicted physiotherapists' improvement in attitude.
Participation in a structured JC can lead to significant improvements in EBP knowledge irrespective of the characteristics of individual practitioners. The change in attitude and evidence uptake, however, may be influenced by individual characteristics which will therefore require careful consideration when designing EBP interventions. An EBP intervention is likely to be successful if a systematic assessment of the barriers at different levels (ie, individual, organizational, and contextual) informs the choice of evidence implementation strategy.
最近一项研究期刊俱乐部（JC）结构化模式影响的试验表明，不同联合健康学科在循证实践（EBP）结果方面存在差异。本研究的目的是确定是否存在个体从业者特征可以解释这种差异，并识别EBP结果的潜在预测因素。
这项探索性研究使用了从JC试验中获得的数据。使用单变量逻辑回归模型分析了与从业者相关的变量的预测价值，这些变量包括学术学位、以前接受EBP培训的经历以及以前参与研究的经历。干预剂量也纳入了探索性分析。
参与JC后自我报告的知识、证据采纳和态度的变化受到个体从业者特征的影响，这些特征包括他们的学科、学术背景、以前的EBP培训、以前参与研究的经历以及参加JC的情况。客观知识的改善似乎不受这些变量中的任何一个影响。除了学术背景可预测物理治疗师态度的改善外，这些个体特征是否有能力预测谁在知识、态度和证据采纳方面的变化小于或大于50%尚不清楚。
参与结构化的JC可以显著提高EBP知识，而不论个体从业者的特征如何。然而，态度和证据采纳的变化可能受到个体特征的影响，因此在设计EBP干预措施时需要仔细考虑。如果对不同层面（即个体、组织和背景）的障碍进行系统评估，为证据实施策略的选择提供依据，EBP干预可能会取得成功。
