Conectar
Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) is essential to healthcare quality and safety, integrating scientific evidence with clinical expertise and patient preferences. Despite its importance, EBP implementation still faces major challenges. Educational interventions have proven effective in strengthening EBP competencies among healthcare.
To evaluate the impact of a personalized educational intervention on EBP competencies among healthcare professionals. Working at a private tertiary general hospital, comparing performance before and after the intervention.
A randomized controlled trial involving healthcare professionals was conducted. Eligible and consented participants were randomly assigned to either an Intervention Group (IG) receiving an Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) course or a Control Group (CG) not receiving the course, stratified by job level, role, and work shift. From the completers, 18 participants were randomly selected for the IG, and all 7 available CG participants were included in the final sample for analysis. All study participants completed two validated instruments: the Assessing Competencies in Evidence-Based Medicine (ACE) and the Fresno Test. The educational intervention consisted of a seven-week course with weekly three-hour sessions, for a total of 21 h. Comparative analyses were conducted using a Linear Mixed Model, adjusted for educational level, job level, time working at the hospital, and weekly workload.
A statistically significant increase in general EBP knowledge was observed in the IG following the intervention, with a mean gain of 19.1%. Separate analysis showed improvements of 10.8% in ACE and 24.2% in Fresno Test scores. No statistically significant changes were observed in the CG. Furthermore, after the intervention, the IG outperformed the CG for both general EBP knowledge and Fresno Test scores on both pre- and post-intervention comparisons.
The educational intervention had a positive statistically significant impact on EBP knowledge and skills among healthcare professionals in the IG compared to the CG. These findings underscore the potential of structured educational initiatives to enhance the quality of clinical practice through improved EBP competencies.
UTN U1111-1322-8443
The aim of this study is to identify and analyse research priorities across the osteopathic profession internationally, to determine how different interested parties conceptualise research importance and to examine how contextual factors influence research prioritisation.
A mixed methods sequential exploratory design combining an umbrella review, a thematic analysis, an expert consensus agreement and an international cross-sectional survey was used to define, validate and evaluate research priorities.
An international online survey, available in nine languages, was distributed through professional osteopathic organisations and network worldwide, a patient representative organisation and social media.
2229 respondents including patients (7.4%), practitioners (42.1%), students (17.4%), educators (13.5%), researchers (5.0%) and policy makers (4.3%) from across 42 countries.
Primary outcomes were interested party’s conceptualisation of research importance and validation of the priorities in Research for Osteopathic Care (PROCare) framework. Secondary outcomes included current research priorities across interested parties groups and influence of contextual factors on prioritisation.
Three distinct approaches to priority-setting emerged: conservative (42.9%), sceptic (20.2%) and enthusiast (36.9%). Organising research priorities as a construct built from domains and subdomains was shown to be internally valid (Cronbach’s α=0.911). ‘Patient safety’ (nominated by 82% of relevant countries) and ‘physical activities and mobility’ (51.0%) were the most prioritised subdomains. ‘Digital health’ ranked lowest (28th of 28 subdomains). Significant geographic variations were observed mainly for the overall importance to most research domains. Strong consensus emerged around core priorities including patient safety, physical activity promotion and understanding treatment mechanisms.
The PROCare framework provides a validated structure for evaluating osteopathic research priorities across diverse interested parties. While geographic variations exist in priority emphasis, fundamental agreement on key research domains suggests potential for internationally coordinated research strategies. Future work should focus on developing mechanisms to ensure balanced representation of conservative, sceptic and enthusiast perspectives in research planning.
Chronic low back pain (CLBP) and depressive symptoms (DS) are highly prevalent, burdensome, costly and comorbid health conditions. Osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) was shown to improve pain and disability in patients with CLBP; however, the effect on comorbid DS remains less certain. Interestingly, CLBP and DS seem to be associated with changes in interoception, which may be reversed by OMT.
The study protocol proposes a single-blinded, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial to investigate the effect of OMT on clinical symptoms (depression, pain and disability) and interoceptive functions (interoceptive accuracy, sensibility and awareness) in patients with CLBP and comorbid DS. A sample of 60 adult subjects with CLBP and comorbid DS shall be recruited from osteopathic, orthopaedic and physiotherapeutic practices and educational institutes for osteopathy, sports science, psychology and medicine in Hamburg, Germany. Participants will be randomly allocated (1:1 ratio) to receive six 45 min treatment sessions of either OMT (standard-OMT group) or sham treatment imitating OMT (sham-OMT group). Primarily, symptoms of depression, pain and disability will be assessed with the Beck’s Depression Inventory, Second Edition (BDI-II), Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Secondarily, interoceptive accuracy, sensibility and awareness will be evaluated using the Heartbeat Tracking Task (HTT), Multidimensional Assessment of Interoceptive Awareness (MAIA-2) and confidence-accuracy correspondence (CAC). Ancillary, the therapeutic alliance will be investigated with the Helping Alliance Questionnaire. Data will be collected at baseline (t0), the first, third and sixth treatment sessions (t1, t3, t6) and at 3 months follow-up (t7). The findings will be analysed for between-group differences using descriptive (mean and SD) and inductive statistics (mixed analysis of variance). It is hypothesised that standard-OMT, compared with sham-OMT, will reduce depression, pain and disability (BDI-II, NRS, ODI) and increase interoceptive accuracy, sensibility and awareness (HTT, MAIA-2, CAC) in patients with CLBP and comorbid DS.
The study was approved by the ethics committee of the Medical School Hamburg (MSH-2023/288). The anonymised dataset will be published in an online repository, and the results will be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
DRKS00031694.
FreshRSS 