Knowledge, attitudes and behaviours of evidence-informed practice in respiratory therapy: A cross-sectional survey
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background Using evidence to guide clinical practice is recognized as the cornerstone of safe, effective, and patient-centred care and is embedded within the national competency framework of respiratory therapists (RTs) as evidence-informed practice (EIP). However, how this competency is enacted in practice remains unclear. RTs, like many health professionals, encounter challenges in enacting EIP and are influenced by individual, contextual, and organizational factors. As part of a broader program of research, our team conceptualized EIP in respiratory therapy as comprising three interrelated components: reflective practice, shared decision-making, and research awareness. In this study, we examined the current knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours of RTs in Canada related to these three core components of EIP. Methods We surveyed credentialed RTs across Canada to assess their knowledge, attitudes and behaviours relating to three components of EIP: reflective practice, shared decision-making, and research awareness. Participants were randomly assigned to complete one of three surveys, each of which related to one of the components. We used a simple-randomized, stratified sampling to enhance generalizability, and analyzed the data using descriptive statistics, one-way ANOVA, and exploratory analyses of demographic and practice-related variables. We analyzed open-ended responses using qualitative content analysis. Results The three surveys were accessed 442 times. After removing non-responses and incomplete data, we analyzed the data from 288 participants (response rate = 10.2%). Out of the possible 100 score, shared decision-making yielded the highest mean knowledge score ( M = 86.4, SD = 6.4), while research awareness scored highest for attitudes ( M = 81.4, SD = 13.4) and behaviours ( M = 78.3, SD = 10.4). Reflective practice showed the lowest mean scores across domains (knowledge M = 40.6; attitudes M = 53.3; behaviours M = 61.3). ANOVAs indicated significant group differences across all domains ( p < .001). Using the open-ended responses, 79.2% of participants emphasized that research evidence is the most significant feature of EIP. The open-ended responses related to training needs for EIP focused on condition- or population-specific application (29.5%), preferred formats, such as journal clubs, webinars, and modules (24.7%), and skills for engaging with research (21.2%). Exploratory analyses suggested some differences in knowledge, attitudes and behaviours of EIP by gender, race, geography, practice setting, age, and years in practice. Discussion RTs in Canada demonstrated variable knowledge, attitudes and behaviours across all components of EIP. While reflective practice stood out as the component with the lowest scores across knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours, scores in all three components indicated room for improvement. Together, these findings highlight that all areas of EIP require strengthening through contextually relevant educational strategies to better support RTs in enacting EIP.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».