General practitioners say that evidence based information is changing practice
http://www.100md.com
《英国医生杂志》
EDITOR—As the publishers of the BMJ's Clinical Evidence we have more than a passing interest in the extent to which the provision of evidenced based information changes clinical practice. In this context, the results of an evaluation of Clinical Evidence commissioned by us assumed some importance.
A total of 5960 general practitioners in England were contacted by Stingray Research, an independent market research company, and asked to provide some broad perceptions about the role of evidence in their day to day practice and to pass judgment on Clinical Evidence. The response rate was 838/5960 (14.1%).
Some findings were not surprising. Seventy five per cent of general practitioner respondents reported that their patients were likely to show interest in the latest research findings. Ninety seven per cent of the general practitioners had used an information resource to find the latest evidence, and 45% expected to do so at least once every fortnight. Subject matter ranged across the broad spectrum of disease. Clinical Evidence was used mainly around clinical consultations—before, during, and after. However, other uses, such as education and teaching, and assisting the development of practice guidelines, were also reported by 77% and 52% of respondents, respectively.
The most crucial findings related to the proportion of doctors, 75%, who reported that they had changed their practice as a result of using Clinical Evidence. Two thirds of these had done so in the previous six months. Change of practice in response to Clinical Evidence was most likely in younger doctors, but was also reported by 56% of respondents aged over 55.
Quotes from respondents underlined the message; that provision of evidence from an independent, trusted source supported them in developing their practice and improved the quality of their consultations.
There are limitations to this evaluation. We don't know what the non-respondents thought, for example. However, the evidence seems to imply that there is a substantial body of clinicians of all ages—in this case English general practitioners, but we know that similar results have been found among Italian1 and US doctors—who are motivated to use evidence based sources to improve their care for patients.
David Tovey, deputy editor, Clinical Evidence
dtovey@bmjgroup.com
Fiona Godlee, head, BMJ Knowledge
BMJ Publishing Group, London WC1H 9JR
Competing interests: Both authors are Clinical Evidence editors, which is published by the BMJ Publishing Group.
References
Formoso G, Moja L, Nonino F, Dri P, Addis A, Martini N, et al. Clinical evidence: a useful tool for promoting evidence-based practice? BMC Health Services Research 2003;3: 24 doi:10.1186/1472-6963-3-24.
A total of 5960 general practitioners in England were contacted by Stingray Research, an independent market research company, and asked to provide some broad perceptions about the role of evidence in their day to day practice and to pass judgment on Clinical Evidence. The response rate was 838/5960 (14.1%).
Some findings were not surprising. Seventy five per cent of general practitioner respondents reported that their patients were likely to show interest in the latest research findings. Ninety seven per cent of the general practitioners had used an information resource to find the latest evidence, and 45% expected to do so at least once every fortnight. Subject matter ranged across the broad spectrum of disease. Clinical Evidence was used mainly around clinical consultations—before, during, and after. However, other uses, such as education and teaching, and assisting the development of practice guidelines, were also reported by 77% and 52% of respondents, respectively.
The most crucial findings related to the proportion of doctors, 75%, who reported that they had changed their practice as a result of using Clinical Evidence. Two thirds of these had done so in the previous six months. Change of practice in response to Clinical Evidence was most likely in younger doctors, but was also reported by 56% of respondents aged over 55.
Quotes from respondents underlined the message; that provision of evidence from an independent, trusted source supported them in developing their practice and improved the quality of their consultations.
There are limitations to this evaluation. We don't know what the non-respondents thought, for example. However, the evidence seems to imply that there is a substantial body of clinicians of all ages—in this case English general practitioners, but we know that similar results have been found among Italian1 and US doctors—who are motivated to use evidence based sources to improve their care for patients.
David Tovey, deputy editor, Clinical Evidence
dtovey@bmjgroup.com
Fiona Godlee, head, BMJ Knowledge
BMJ Publishing Group, London WC1H 9JR
Competing interests: Both authors are Clinical Evidence editors, which is published by the BMJ Publishing Group.
References
Formoso G, Moja L, Nonino F, Dri P, Addis A, Martini N, et al. Clinical evidence: a useful tool for promoting evidence-based practice? BMC Health Services Research 2003;3: 24 doi:10.1186/1472-6963-3-24.