Randomised controlled trial of a theoretically grounded tailored intervention to diffuse evidence-based public health practice [ISRCTN23257060].
Randomised controlled trial of a theoretically grounded tailored intervention to diffuse evidence-based public health practice [ISRCTN23257060].
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/1472-6920-3-2
复制
发表时间：
2003-03-13
影响因子：
3.6
通讯作者：
Bjorndal, Arild
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Forsetlund, Louise;Bradley, Peter;Bjorndal, Arild
背景技术背景：以前的研究表明，挪威公共卫生医生在其实践中没有系统和明确地使用科学证据。他们在一个不鼓励将这些信息纳入决策的环境中工作。在这项研究中，我们调查是否在理论上接地量身定制的干预扩散循证公共卫生实践增加了医生的使用research information.METHODS：148自我选择的公共卫生医生被随机分为干预组（n = 73）和对照组（n = 75）。干预组接受了多方面的干预，而对照组则收到了一封信，声明他们可以使用图书馆服务。进行了干预前的基线评估和1.5年干预期结束时立即进行的测试后评估。干预措施以理论为基础，包括一个循证公共卫生讲习班、一份通讯、获得专门设计的信息服务、相关数据库和电子讨论清单。主要结果的措施是行为作为衡量使用的研究在不同的document.RESULTS：干预没有表现出任何证据的影响，对客观的行为结果。然而，我们发现，两组之间的两个知识得分的统计学显着差异：平均差异为0.4（95%CI：0.2-0.6）的循证医学资源的知识得分和平均差异为0.2（95%CI：0.0-0.3）的关键评价的重要性的概念知识的得分。在态度、自我效能、决定采纳或工作满意度量表上没有统计学显著差异。有没有显着差异，在科克伦库搜索控制后的基线值和characteristics.CONCLUSION：虽然展示效果的知识，研究未能提供支持的假设，即以理论为基础的多方面的干预，针对确定的障碍将改变专业行为。
BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown that Norwegian public health physicians do not systematically and explicitly use scientific evidence in their practice. They work in an environment that does not encourage the integration of this information in decision-making. In this study we investigate whether a theoretically grounded tailored intervention to diffuse evidence-based public health practice increases the physicians' use of research information.METHODS: 148 self-selected public health physicians were randomised to an intervention group (n = 73) and a control group (n = 75). The intervention group received a multifaceted intervention while the control group received a letter declaring that they had access to library services. Baseline assessments before the intervention and post-testing immediately at the end of a 1.5-year intervention period were conducted. The intervention was theoretically based and consisted of a workshop in evidence-based public health, a newsletter, access to a specially designed information service, to relevant databases, and to an electronic discussion list. The main outcome measure was behaviour as measured by the use of research in different documents.RESULTS: The intervention did not demonstrate any evidence of effects on the objective behaviour outcomes. We found, however, a statistical significant difference between the two groups for both knowledge scores: Mean difference of 0.4 (95% CI: 0.2-0.6) in the score for knowledge about EBM-resources and mean difference of 0.2 (95% CI: 0.0-0.3) in the score for conceptual knowledge of importance for critical appraisal. There were no statistical significant differences in attitude-, self-efficacy-, decision-to-adopt- or job-satisfaction scales. There were no significant differences in Cochrane library searching after controlling for baseline values and characteristics.CONCLUSION: Though demonstrating effect on knowledge the study failed to provide support for the hypothesis that a theory-based multifaceted intervention targeted at identified barriers will change professional behaviour.