The motivation of health professionals to explore research evidence in their practice: an intervention study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To assess the impact of multifaceted clinically focused educational strategies that concentrated on introducing dementia care research evidence on health professionals' awareness and inclination to use research findings in their future practice. BACKGROUND: The promise of evidence-based practice is slow to materialize with the limitations of adopting research findings in practice readily identifiable. METHOD: A pre- and post-test quasi experimental design. The study involved the administration of: a pretest (baseline), an intervention phase, and a post-test survey, the same research utilization survey. TOOL: The Edmonton Research Orientation Survey (EROS), a self-report tool that asks participants about their attitudes toward research and about their potential to use research findings, was used to determine health professionals' orientation to research. INTERVENTION: The introduction of dementia care research evidence through multifaceted clinically focused educational strategies to improve practice. This was achieved through a resource team comprising a Clinical Nurse Consultant, as a leader and resource of localized evidence-based knowledge in aged care; an experienced Registered Nurse to support the introduction of strategies and a further experienced educator and clinician to reinforce the importance of evidence in change. RESULTS: Across all the four subscales that are measured in the Edmonton Research Orientation Survey, statistical analysis by independent samples t-test identified that there was no significant change between the before and after measurements. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Successful integration of changes based on evidence does not necessarily mean that staff become more aware or are more inclined to use research findings in future to address problems.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.132 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".