Evidence-based practice and research utilisation: Perceived research knowledge, attitudes, practices and barriers among Australian paediatric occupational therapists
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIM: Evidence-based practice (EBP) and research utilisation (RU) are promoted as ways for clients to receive the best level of care. However, limited research has evaluated the use of these approaches by occupational therapists. This study investigated the knowledge, attitudes, practices of and barriers to EBP and RU of a group of paediatric occupational therapists from Australia. METHODS: Questionnaires were received from 138 participants (response rate 46%) who completed the Research Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices of Research Survey, the Edmonton Research Orientation Survey and the Barriers to Research Utilisation Scale. RESULTS: The participants held positive attitudes towards research, and were willing to access new information to guide practice approaches. However, participants were less confident in their research knowledge and practices and implemented research findings into clinical practice. Multiple barriers to RU were perceived, particularly associated with the presentation and accessibility of research. Participants reported limited engagement in conducting research studies, although the majority of the participants reported implementing the findings of research into their clinical practice to some extent. CONCLUSION: Additional research education and support within organisations would be beneficial to ensure that children and families are receiving occupational therapy services that are based on sound, high-quality research evidence. The findings of this study provide insight into the perceived research knowledge, attitudes, practices of and barriers to Australian paediatric occupational therapists, enabling specific strategies to be implemented to increase the use of EBP and RU within the profession.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.031 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it