Table 3 Evidence based practice implementation scale results
From: Enhancing utility and understanding of evidence based practice through undergraduate nurse education
Participants: Time 1 baseline n = 124; Time 2 Follow-up n = 56 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Question | 0 times | <3 times | 5 times | >5 < 8 times | >8 times | Sig |
1.Use evidence to change my practice | 46 (73%) | 11 (18%) | 3 (5%) | 2 (3%) | 1 (2%) | P < .001* |
Time 2 - Follow-up | 10 (22%) | 24 (53%) | – | 3 (7%) | ||
2.Critically appraised evidence | 46 (73%) | 12 (19%) | 1 (2%) | 2 (3%) | 2 (3%) | P < .001* |
Time 2 - Follow-up | 14 (32%) | 20 (46%) | – | 6 (14%) | 4 (10%) | |
3.Generated PICO question | 58 (92%) | 4 (6%) | 1 (2%) | – | – | P < .001* |
Time 2 - Follow-up | 16 (36%) | 15 (33%) | – | 12 (27%) | 2 (4%) | |
4.Informally discussed | 46 (73%) | 11 (17%) | 4 (6%) | 1 (2%) | 1 (2%) | P < .001* |
Time 2 - Follow-up | 16 (36%) | 15 (33) | – | 10 (22%) | 5 (9%) | |
5.Collect data on patient problem | 45 (71%) | 11 (18%) | 4 (6%) | 2 (3%) | 1 (2%) | P = .164 |
Time 2 - Follow-up | 25 (56%) | 17 (38%) | – | 2 (4%) | 1 (2%) | |
6.Shared evidence with colleagues | 50 (79%) | 8 13%) | 2 (3%) | 2 (3%) | 1 (2%) | P = .006* |
Time 2 - Follow-up | 24(53%) | 15 (33%) | – | 6 (13%) | – | |
7.Evaluated outcomes of practice change | 48 (77%) | 10 (16%) | 1 (2%) | 3 (5%) | – | P = .151 |
Time 2 - Follow-up | 29 (64%) | 12 (27%) | – | 4 (9%) | – | |
8.Shared an EBP guideline with a colleague | 50 (79%) | 9 (14%) | 1 (2%) | 3 (5%) | – | P < .001* |
Time 2 - Follow-up | 18 (41%) | 21 (48%) | – | 2 (5%) | 3 (7%) | |
9.Shared evidence with patient, family | 46 (73%) | 12 (19%) | 3 (5%) | 2 (3%) | – | P < .001* |
Time 2 - Follow-up | 13 (29%) | 23 (51%) | – | 7 (16%) | 2 (4%) | |
10.Shared evidence with multi-disciplinary colleague | 50 (81%) | 10 (16%) | 2 (3%) | – | – | P = .044* |
Time 2 - Follow-up | 29 (64%) | 11 (24%) | – | 4 (9%) | 1 (2%) | |
11.Read and critically appraised study | 48 (77%) | 10 (16%) | 4 (6%) | – | – | P < .001* |
Time 2 - Follow-up | 17 (39%) | 18 (41%) | – | 7 (16%) | 2 (5%) | |
12.Accessed Cochrane | 56 (90%) | 3 (5%) | 3 (5%) | – | – | P < .001* |
Time 2 - Follow-up | 12 (27%) | 10 (22%) | – | 17 (38%) | 6 (13%) | |
13.Accessed National Guidelines | 55 (89%) | 5 (8%) | 2 (3%) | – | – | P < .001* |
Time 2 - Follow-up | 27 (60%) | 12 (27%) | – | 5 (11%) | 1 (2%) | |
14.Used EBP guideline | 54 (86%) | 7 (11%) | 2 (3%) | – | – | P = .005* |
Time 2 - Follow-up | 28 (62%) | 14 (31%) | – | 3(7%) | – | |
15.Evaluated care initiative | 53 (84%) | 6 (10%) | 2 (3%) | – | 2 (3%) | P = .294 |
Time 2 - Follow-up | 33 (75%) | 9 (21%) | – | 2(5%) | – | |
16.Shared outcome data | 51 (81%) | 5 (8%) | 5 (8%) | 2 (3%) | – | P = .432 |
Time 2 - Follow-up | 33 (73%) | 9 (20%) | – | 3 (7%) | – | |
17.Changed practice based on outcome data | 49 (78%) | 9 (14%) | 3 (5%) | 1 (2%) | 1 (2%) | P = .169 |
Time 2 - Follow-up | 29 (64%) | 13 (29%) | – | 3 (7%) | – | |
18.Promoted use of EBP | 50 (81%) | 7 (11%) | 3 (5%) | 1 (2%) | 1 (2%) | P < .001* |
Time 2 - Follow-up | 18 (40%) | 18 (40%) | – | 8 (18%) | 1 (2%) | |