4.4 Article

Evidence-based medicine among physicians working in selected public hospitals in eastern Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study

期刊

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12911-019-0826-8

关键词

Evidence-based medicine; Public hospitals; Physicians; Eastern Ethiopia; Barriers

资金

  1. Haramaya University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundEvidence-Based Medicine (EBM) is the process of systematically locating, searching, evaluating, and using contemporaneous research findings as the basis for clinical decision making. The systematic review showed that there is a considerable gap between what is known in the systematic research evidence and what happens in practice. Thus, the purpose of this study is to assess knowledge, attitude, practice and perceived barriers to EBM among physicians working in public hospitals in eastern Ethiopia.MethodsAn institutional-based cross-sectional survey was conducted from April 1-June 8, 2017. Simple random sampling with proportional allocation was used. A total of 137 physicians was included in the survey. The data were collected by interview. Data were coded and entered to EpiData3.1 then exported to and analyzed by using IBM SPSS statistics 21.0.ResultsPhysicians were aware of and used HINARI (22.6%), Cochrane (29.8%) and PubMed/Medline (37.9%) EBM electronic databases. The majority, (88.7%) physicians have a good attitude to EBM but only (32.3%) integrate it into clinical practice. Ability to retrieving evidence, evaluating the outcomes of the EBM practice implemented and difficulty in understanding research reports were significantly associated factors.ConclusionsThe attitude of the physicians towards EBM was virtuous, but knowledge of EBM and practice of integrating new evidence in healthcare service were really insufficient. Relatively, the EBM implementation is low when compared with many studies. To obviate this, the stakeholders need to have a strong commitment to design a strategy for promoting physicians in implementing EBM to their day to day clinical decision-making process.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据