Article type
Abstract
Background: Making decision on the basis of evidence (Evidence based healthcare, EBHC) is currently widely adopted by all medical and health related fields, and included in many university curricula for teaching undergraduate and postgraduate health care professionals (HCP). In 2014 the umbrella review focusing on the effects of EBHC education concluded that for medicine and medicine-allied undergraduates and postgraduates any type of EBHC education (vs. no intervention) improves their EBHC knowledge and/or attitude and/or skills and/or practice and/or behavior. Additional studies comparing any kind of EBHC education vs no intervention are, therefore, not needed anymore. On the other hand the review clearly identified what type of future research is needed in this filed.
Objective: The aim of this cross-sectional study is to examine whether the conclusions of the first landmark umbrella review on EBHC education were taken into account in the design of subsequent randomized controlled trials focusing on EBHC education, if included studies justified the need of the new study and/or contextualized results with other systematic reviews or meta-analyses or their own systematic search.
Methods: We searched 7 databases (OVID EMBASE, OVID Medline, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ERIC, and ProQuest). Results are being screened against the eligibility criteria (i.e. RCT study design, any EBHC intervention, published since 2015 onwards) by 2 independent reviewers. Included studies will be extracted and assessed in their risk of bias using Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 1.0. Each step will be preceded by piloting. We will conduct narrative and quantitative synthesis.
Results: 17290 studies were included for initial search. We piloted extraction form and we are in the process of screening. We will present the results during Conference.
Relevance for patients: Our study fits into the context of activities against research waste and unnecessary research efforts, which in case of assessing the effects of teaching EBHC to healthcare professions does not have direct relevance to patients, but can indirectly contribute to improving use of evidence in clinical practice and as a consequence benefit patients.
Objective: The aim of this cross-sectional study is to examine whether the conclusions of the first landmark umbrella review on EBHC education were taken into account in the design of subsequent randomized controlled trials focusing on EBHC education, if included studies justified the need of the new study and/or contextualized results with other systematic reviews or meta-analyses or their own systematic search.
Methods: We searched 7 databases (OVID EMBASE, OVID Medline, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ERIC, and ProQuest). Results are being screened against the eligibility criteria (i.e. RCT study design, any EBHC intervention, published since 2015 onwards) by 2 independent reviewers. Included studies will be extracted and assessed in their risk of bias using Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 1.0. Each step will be preceded by piloting. We will conduct narrative and quantitative synthesis.
Results: 17290 studies were included for initial search. We piloted extraction form and we are in the process of screening. We will present the results during Conference.
Relevance for patients: Our study fits into the context of activities against research waste and unnecessary research efforts, which in case of assessing the effects of teaching EBHC to healthcare professions does not have direct relevance to patients, but can indirectly contribute to improving use of evidence in clinical practice and as a consequence benefit patients.