...
首页> 外文期刊>BMC Medical Education >Efficacy of evidence-based medicine training for primary healthcare professionals: a non-randomized controlled trial
【24h】

Efficacy of evidence-based medicine training for primary healthcare professionals: a non-randomized controlled trial

机译:循证医学培训对初级卫生保健专业人员的功效:非随机对照试验

获取原文
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

The impact of evidence-based medicine (EBM) training techniques in primary healthcare professionals remains to be determined. A non-randomized controlled trial (NRCT) was performed aiming to assess the two methods of evidence-based medicine training for primary healthcare professionals by assessing evidence based practice (EBP) related knowledge (EBP-K), attitude (EBP-A), personal application (EBP-P), anticipated future use (EBP-F), and community management of hypertension. Participants were recruited and assigned to either an EBM training group that receiving a weekly face-to-face EBM training course, or an EBM self-instruction course for eight weeks. A validated instrument was applied to evaluate the four aspects of EBP. Additionally, community management of hypertension was assessed by comparing the the rate of detection, blood pressure control, standard management, grading management and patient satisfaction between 2015 and 2016 to measure training efficacy. The difference between the impact of these two interventions was assessed statistically. One hundred fifty-one participants (69 in the face-to-face EBM training group and 82 in the self-instruction group) were included. Compared to self-instruction, the face-to-face EBM training was associated with significantly improved EBP-Knowledge (26.14?±?4.22 vs. 22.44?±?4.47, P??0.05), EBP-Personal application (22.52?±?6.18 vs. 16.89?±?5.99, P??0.05), and EBP-Future use (44.04?±?8.97 vs. 37.71?±?8.39, P??0.05). EBP-Attitude scores (10.89?±?4.52 vs.14.93?±?5.92, P??0.000) were lower in the EBM training group. Stratified analyses showed that the results were consistent regardless of the participants’ gender, professional role (doctors & apothecaries or nurses), rank (junior or senior doctors & apothecaries), or specialty (Traditional Chinese or Western Medicine). Assessment of community hypertension management revealed that the rate of blood pressure control, standardized hypertension management and patient satisfaction was significantly better in group A than group B (1.14% vs.0.69, 2.85% vs.1.68 and 2.41% vs.0.84%). A face-to-face EBM training course improved primary healthcare professionals’ EBP knowledge, attitudes, personal application, and anticipated future use. Effective EBM training may improve the efficacy of primary health care services. Non-Randomized Controlled Trial ChiCTR1800017498 , August 1, 2018.
机译:循证医学(EBM)培训技术对初级保健专业人员的影响尚待确定。进行了一项非随机对照试验(NRCT),旨在通过评估基于证据的实践(EBP)相关知识(EBP-K),态度(EBP-A)和评估针对初级保健专业人员的两种循证医学培训方法,个人申请(EBP-P),预期的未来用途(EBP-F)和高血压社区管理。招募参与者并将其分配到每周接受一次面对面的EBM培训课程的EBM培训组或为期8周的EBM自我指导课程。应用经过验证的仪器评估EBP的四个方面。此外,通过比较2015年至2016年的检出率,血压控制,标准管理,等级管理和患者满意度来评估高血压的社区管理,以评估培训效果。对这两种干预措施的影响之间的差异进行了统计学评估。包括151名参与者(面对面的EBM培训组为69名,自我指导组为82名)。与自我指导相比,面对面的EBM训练显着改善了EBP知识(26.14±±4.22 vs. 22.44±±4.47,P≤<0.05),EBP个人应用(22.52±0.05)。 ±?6.18与16.89?±?5.99,P?<?0.05)和EBP-Future使用情况(44.04?±?8.97,与37.71?±?8.39,P?<?0.05)。 EBM训练组的EBP-态度得分(10.89?±?4.52 vs.14.93?±?5.92,P?<?0.000)较低。分层分析表明,无论参与者的性别,专业角色(医生和药剂师或护士),职称(初级或高级医生和药剂师)还是专业(中医或西医),结果都是一致的。对社区高血压管理的评估显示,A组的血压控制率,标准化高血压管理和患者满意度显着优于B组(1.14%vs.0.69、2.85%vs.1.68和2.41%vs.0.84%)。面对面的EBM培训课程提高了初级保健专业人员的EBP知识,态度,个人应用以及预期的未来用途。有效的EBM培训可以提高初级卫生保健服务的效率。非随机对照试验ChiCTR1800017498,2018年8月1日。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号