Evidence-Based Practice in Healthcare: An Exploratory Cross-Discipline Comparison of Enhancers and Barriers
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
In order to improve health outcomes, healthcare providers need to base practice on current evidence. The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore and compare the understanding and experiences with evidence-based practice (EBP) in three different disciplines. Researchers conducted individual interviews with psychiatrists, nurses, and dental hygienists. The majority of study participants demonstrated an understanding of EBP and were able to identify enhancers and barriers to implementing EBP. Using a grounded theory approach, several major themes acting as enhancers and barriers to EBP emerged and revealed both differences and similarities within and across the three health disciplines. While saturation was not attempted, this exploratory research is important in contributing to understanding the cultural practice milieu in relation to individual characteristics in implementing evidence into practice with the overall aim of improving healthcare delivery and outcomes.
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 | 0.032 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 it