Quasi-experimental study shows improved competencies in evidence-based practice among nurses, indicating effective training.
Evidence-based practice has been shown to improve the quality and efficiency of health care. However, more than 58% of nurses in Taiwan have no evidence-based-practice-related training program experience. This study was designed to establish a training program to improve the evidence-based practice competencies among currently practicing clinical nurses. A pretest-posttest quasi-experimental study was conducted on a sample of 80 clinical nurses aged 20 and above. The sample was distinguished into exposure (training program) and control groups. The Health Sciences-Evidence-Based Practice questionnaire was used to measure targeted outcomes before and after the training program. IBM SPSS version 20.0 was used to perform k-means cluster analysis, with p values <.05 considered statistically significant. After the training program intervention, statistically significant between-group differences were found in the five domains of evidence-based practice, including belief attitudes, results of scientific research, development of professional practice, results assessment, and barriers-facilitators for evidence-based practice. The k-means of cluster analysis resulted in the regrouping of the exposure group with the EBP program as exposure A (n=20) and exposure B (n=20). Significant differences were observed for all five domains of the Health Sciences-Evidence-Based Practice among the three groups, with scores for the exposure A group consistently better than those for either the exposure B or control group, especially in the results of scientific research and results assessment domains. The 40-hour evidence-based practice training program is an effective program for improving evidence-based practice competencies in health care professionals. This training program may be applied as a tool to help clinical nurses correctly and effectively apply evidence-based practice in patient health care.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yeh et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: