IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0244190.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Changes in physiotherapists’ perceptions of evidence-based practice after a year in the workforce: A mixed-methods study

Author

Listed:
  • Maureen McEvoy
  • Julie Luker
  • Caroline Fryer
  • Lucy K Lewis

Abstract

Background: Few studies have explored evidence-based practice (EBP) knowledge, attitudes and behaviours of health professional graduates transitioning into the workforce. This study evaluated changes in these EBP domains in physiotherapists after one year of working. Method: A mixed methods design was used. Participants completed two psychometrically-tested EBP questionnaires at two timepoints. The Evidence-Based Practice Profile questionnaire collected self-report EBP data (Terminology, Relevance, Confidence, Practice, Sympathy) and the Knowledge of Research Evidence Competencies collected objective data (Actual Knowledge). Changes were calculated using descriptive statistics (paired t-tests, 95% CI, effect sizes). Qualitative interview data collected at one timepoint were analysed using a descriptive approach and thematic analysis, to examine the lived experience of participants in the context of their first employment. The aim of the mixed methods approach was a broader and deeper understanding of participants’ first year of employment and using EBP. Results: Data were analysed from 50 participants who completed both questionnaires at the two timepoints. After one year in the workforce, there was a significant decrease in participants’ perceptions of Relevance (p

Suggested Citation

  • Maureen McEvoy & Julie Luker & Caroline Fryer & Lucy K Lewis, 2020. "Changes in physiotherapists’ perceptions of evidence-based practice after a year in the workforce: A mixed-methods study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(12), pages 1-15, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0244190
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244190
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0244190
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0244190&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0244190?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0244190. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.