3.8 Article

A pilot study exploring the relationship between lifelong learning and factors associated with evidence-based medicine

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION
Volume 7, Issue -, Pages 214-219

Publisher

INT JOURNAL MEDICAL EDUCATION-IJML
DOI: 10.5116/ijme.576f.a2ca

Keywords

Evidence-based medicine; information management skill; learning environment; lifelong learning; medical residents; self-efficacy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: To explore possible relationships between residents' lifelong learning orientation, skills in practicing evidence-based medicine (EBM), and perceptions of the environment for learning and practicing EBM. Methods: This was a pilot study with a cross-sectional survey design. Out of 60 residents in a medical residency program, 29 participated in the study. Data were collected using a survey that comprised three sections: the JeffSPLL Scale, EBM Environment Scale, and an EBM skill questionnaire. Data were analyzed using SPSS and were reported with descriptive and inferential statistics (mean, standard deviation, Pearson's correlation, and a two-sample t-test). Results: Mean scores on the JeffSPLL Scale were significantly correlated with perceptions of the EBM Scale and use of EBM resources to keep up to date or solve a specific patient care problem. There was a significant correlation between mean scores on the EBM Scale and hours per week spent in reading medical literature to solve a patient care problem. Two-sample t-tests show that residents with previous training in research methods had significantly higher scores on the JeffSPLL Scale (p=0.04), EBM Scale (p=0.006), and self-efficacy scale (p=0.024). Conclusions: Given the fact that physicians are expected to be lifelong learners over the course of their professional career, developing residents' EBM skills and creating interventions to improve specific areas in the EBM environment would likely foster residents' lifelong learning orientation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available