Descriptive and Content Analysis of Questionnaires Used to Assess Evidence-Based Practice Among Dietitians: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evidence-based practice (EBP) is described as the integration of the following 3 main dimensions in health professionals' decision making: best currently available research evidence, professional expertise, and patient's values and circumstances. Barriers to EBP at an individual level have been assessed using questionnaires. Knowing which EBP dimensions are actually explored in these questionnaires is essential to promote EBP and its adoption. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this review was to identify and describe questionnaires that have been used among dietitians to evaluate knowledge, skills, attitudes, and/or behaviors related to EBP, and to perform a content analysis of these, drawn on the EBP dimensions explored. METHODS: Questionnaires were identified through a systematic review in MEDLINE, Embase and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (last search was November 2022). Eligibility criteria were studies using, evaluating, or developing questionnaires meant to evaluate knowledge, skills, attitudes, and/or behaviors related to EBP among dietitians. The content analysis was conducted to identify the EBP dimensions explored (ie, research evidence, professional expertise, and/or patient's values and circumstances). Questionnaire items were categorized as follows: 1 sole EBP dimension, a combination of dimensions, or no identifiable dimension. RESULTS: Thirty reports (25 studies) were included. The analysis of the 847 items extracted from the 25 questionnaires used showed that the main EBP dimension explored was the integration of research evidence into decision making, found in 75% of items, solely or in combination with another dimension. Professional expertise was explored in 18% of the items, patient's values and circumstances were found in 3%, and the combination of these 3 dimensions was found in <1%. CONCLUSIONS: The important imbalance of explored EBP dimensions in the questionnaires used may lead to a partial and misleading evaluation that prevents efficient strategies to foster EBP. There is an important need to develop more integrative and accurate evaluations of EBP targeting dietitians to promote and develop high-quality dietetics practice.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.096 | 0.222 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.033 | 0.032 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".