Educational Interventions for Teaching Evidence-Based Practice to Undergraduate Nursing Students: A Scoping Review
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Methods
2.1. Design
2.2. Eligibility Criteria
- Types of participants: undergraduate nursing students, incorporating professional or bachelor nursing programme degrees;
- Intervention: Studies that focused on educational interventions aimed at improving EBP competency among nursing students;
- Outcomes: Studies were included if they address at least one of the follow primary learning outcomes: participants’ attitudes, beliefs, knowledge, skills, self-efficacy, behaviour and competency on EBP. Secondary outcomes: reaction to the EBP educational experience, critical thinking and benefit to patients associated with EBP;
- Study design: Studies that performed quantitative and qualitative estimates of the effectiveness of the EBP educational strategies were used, irrespective of the presence of comparator groups, including randomized controlled trial, quasi-experimental controlled trial and before and after studies, and no limit was placed on the duration of the follow-up;
- Other criteria: Research papers that were published in peer-reviewed journals; published in English language and research team’s native languages (Czech, Greek, Italian, Polish, Spanish and Slovenian); from any geographical area. Studies that didn’t meet these criteria were excluded and studies that met the criteria were shortlisted for inclusion in the review. Additionally, some retrieved citations were excluded. They were the review articles, proceedings and dissertations.
2.3. Information Sources and Search Strategy
2.4. Study Selection
2.5. Data Collection Process, Extraction and Quality Assessment
2.6. Synthesis of the Results
3. Results
3.1. Literature Search
3.2. Studies Characteristics
3.3. Data Synthesis
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
Disclaimer
References
- Straus, S.E.; Glasziou, P.; Richardson, W.S.; Haynes, R.B. Evidence-Based Medicine E-Book: How to Practice and Teach EBM; Elsevier Health Sciences: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- American Nurses Association. Nursing Scope and Standards of Practice, 3rd ed.; Silver Spring: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- European Federation of Nurses Associations. EFN Competency Framework. EFN Guideline to Implement Article 31 into National Nurses’ Education Programmes; European Federation of Nurses Associations: Brussels, Belgium, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Institute of Medicine. The Future of Nursing: Leading Change, Advancing Health; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Melnyk, B.M.; Fineout-Overholt, E.; Gallagher-Ford, L.; Kaplan, L. The State of Evidence-Based Practice in US Nurses. JONA J. Nurs. Adm. 2012, 42, 410–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chiu, Y.-W.; Weng, Y.-H.; Lo, H.-L.; Hsu, C.; Shih, Y.-H.; Kuo, K.N. Comparison of evidence-based practice between physicians and nurses: A national survey of regional hospitals in Taiwan. J. Contin. Educ. Health Prof. 2010, 30, 132–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Melnyk, B.M.; Fineout-Overholt, E.; Mays, M.Z. The Evidence-Based Practice Beliefs and Implementation Scales: Psychometric Properties of Two New Instruments. Worldviews Evid. Based Nurs. 2008, 5, 208–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Profetto-McGrath, J. Critical Thinking and Evidence-Based Practice. J. Prof. Nurs. 2005, 21, 364–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Melnyk, B.M.; Fineout-Overholt, E.; Feinstein, N.F.; Sadler, L.S.; Green-Hernandez, C. Nurse Practitioner Educators’ Perceived Knowledge, Beliefs, and Teaching Strategies Regarding Evidence-Based Practice: Implications for Accelerating the Integration of Evidence-Based Practice into Graduate Programs. J. Prof. Nurs. 2008, 24, 7–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stichler, J.F.; Fields, W.; Kim, S.C.; Brown, C.E. Faculty Knowledge, Attitudes, and Perceived Barriers to Teaching Evidence-Based Nursing. J. Prof. Nurs. 2011, 27, 92–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aglen, B. Pedagogical strategies to teach bachelor students evidence-based practice: A systematic review. Nurse Educ. Today 2016, 36, 255–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fiset, V.J.; Graham, I.D.; Davies, B.L. Evidence-Based Practice in Clinical Nursing Education: A Scoping Review. J. Nurs. Educ. 2017, 56, 534–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khalili, R.; Khaghanizade, M.; Sirati Nir, M.; Mokhtari Noori, J.; Zicker, F. Evidence-Based Nursing Education: A Scoping Review. Int. J. Med. Rev. 2015, 2, 273–277. [Google Scholar]
- Skela-Savič, B.; Gotlib, J.; Panczyk, M.; Patelarou, A.; Bole, U.; Ramos-Morcillo, A.J.; Finotto, S.; Mecugni, D.; Jarosova, D.; Patelarou, E.; et al. Teaching Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) in Nursing Curricula in Six European Countries—A descriptive study. Nurse. Educ. Today. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Horntvedt, M.-E.T.; Nordsteien, A.; Fermann, T.; Severinsson, E.I. Strategies for teaching evidence-based practice in nursing education: A thematic literature review. BMC Med. Educ. 2018, 18, 172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Labrague, L.; McEnroe-Petitte, D.; D’Souza, M.S.; Cecily, H.S.J.; Fronda, D.C.; Edet, O.B.; Ibebuike, J.E.; Venkatesan, L.; Almazan, J.U.; Al Amri, M.; et al. A Multicountry Study on Nursing Students’ Self-Perceived Competence and Barriers to Evidence-Based Practice. Worldviews Evid. Based Nurs. 2019, 16, 236–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lam, C.K.; Schubert, C. Evidence-Based Practice Competence in Nursing Students: An Exploratory Study with Important Implications for Educators. Worldviews Evid. Based Nurs. 2019, 16, 161–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Malik, G.; McKenna, L.; Griffiths, D. Endeavoring to Contextualize Curricula within an EBP Framework: A Grounded Theory Study. West. J. Nurs. Res. 2018, 40, 1765–1784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kyriakoulis, K.G.; Patelarou, A.; Laliotis, A.; Wan, A.; Matalliotakis, M.; Tsiou, C.; Patelarou, E. Educational strategies for teaching evidence-based practice to undergraduate health students: Systematic review. J. Educ. Eval. Health Prof. 2016, 13, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Patelarou, A.E.; Kyriakoulis, K.G.; Stamou, A.; Laliotis, A.; Sifaki-Pistolla, D.; Matalliotakis, M.; Prokopakis, E.; Patelarou, E. Approaches to teach evidence-based practice among health professionals: An overview of the existing evidence. Adv. Med. Educ. Pract. 2017, 8, 455–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Larsen, C.; Terkelsen, A.S.; Carlsen, A.-M.F.; Kristensen, H.K. Methods for teaching evidence-based practice: A scoping review. BMC Med. Educ. 2019, 19, 259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ramis, M.-A.; Chang, A.M.; Conway, A.; Lim, D.; Munday, J.; Nissen, L. Theory-based strategies for teaching evidence-based practice to undergraduate health students: A systematic review. BMC Med. Educ. 2019, 19, 267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cui, C.; Li, Y.; Geng, D.; Zhang, H.; Jin, C. The effectiveness of evidence-based nursing on development of nursing students’ critical thinking: A meta-analysis. Nurse Educ. Today 2018, 65, 46–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G.; Prisma Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009, 6, e1000097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ruzafa-Martínez, M. EBP e-Toolkit Project: Providing a Teaching and Learning Open and Innovative toolkit for Evidence-Based Practice to Nursing European Curriculum. Cent. Eur. J. Nurs. Midwifery 2019, 10, 1017–1018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Long, J.D.; Gannaway, P.; Ford, C.; Doumit, R.; Zeeni, N.; Sukkarieh-Haraty, O.; Milane, A.; Byers, B.; Harrison, L.; Hatch, D.; et al. Effectiveness of a Technology-Based Intervention to Teach Evidence-Based Practice: The EBR Tool. Worldviews Evid. Based Nurs. 2016, 13, 59–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hsieh, S.I.; Hsu, L.L.; Huang, T.H. The effect of integrating constructivist and evidence-based practice on baccalaureate nursing student’s cognitive load and learning performance in a research course. Nurse Educ. Today 2016, 42, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singleton, J.K. Evidence-Based Practice Beliefs and Implementation in Doctor of Nursing Practice Students. Worldviews Evid. Based Nurs. 2017, 14, 412–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, J.S.; Gu, M.O.; Chang, H.K. Effects of an evidence-based practice education program using multifaceted interventions: A quasi-experimental study with undergraduate nursing students. BMC Med. Educ. 2019, 19, 71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mena-Tudela, D.; González-Chordá, V.M.; Cervera-Gasch, A.; Maciá-Soler, M.L.; Orts-Cortés, I. Effectiveness of an Evidence-Based Practice educational intervention with second-year nursing students. Rev. Lat. Am. Enferm. 2018, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruzafa-Martínez, M.; López-Iborra, L.; Barranco, D.A.; Ramos-Morcillo, A.J. Effectiveness of an evidence-based practice (EBP) course on the EBP competence of undergraduate nursing students: A quasi-experimental study. Nurse Educ. Today 2016, 38, 82–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scurlock-Evans, L.; Upton, P.; Rouse, J.; Upton, D. To embed or not to embed? A longitudinal study exploring the impact of curriculum design on the evidence-based practice profiles of UK pre-registration nursing students. Nurse Educ. Today 2017, 58, 12–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leach, M.J.; Hofmeyer, A.; Bobridge, A. The impact of research education on student nurse attitude, skill and uptake of evidence-based practice: A descriptive longitudinal survey. J. Clin. Nurs. 2015, 25, 194–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhang, Q.; Zeng, T.; Chen, Y.; Li, X. Assisting undergraduate nursing students to learn evidence-based practice through self-directed learning and workshop strategies during clinical practicum. Nurse Educ. Today 2012, 32, 570–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Keib, C.N.; Cailor, S.; Kiersma, M.E.; Chen, A.M.H. Changes in nursing students’ perceptions of research and evidence-based practice after completing a research course. Nurse Educ. Today 2017, 54, 37–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reid, J.; Briggs, J.; Carlisle, S.; Scott, D.; Lewis, C. Enhancing utility and understanding of evidence based practice through undergraduate nurse education. BMC Nurs. 2017, 16, 58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hagler, D.; Mays, M.Z.; Stillwell, S.B.; Kastenbaum, B.; Brooks, R.; Fineout-Overholt, E.; Williamson, K.M.; Jirsak, J. Preparing Clinical Preceptors to Support Nursing Students in Evidence-Based Practice. J. Contin. Educ. Nurs. 2012, 43, 502–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, S.C.; Brown, C.E.; Fields, W.; Stichler, J.F. Evidence-based practice-focused interactive teaching strategy: A controlled study. J. Adv. Nurs. 2009, 65, 1218–1227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Justham, D.; Timmons, S. An evaluation of using a web-based statistics test to teach statistics to post-registration nursing students. Nurse Educ. Today 2005, 25, 156–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diaz, S.; Walsh, A. Promoting Evidence-Based Practice and Information Literacy through an Undergraduate Nursing Journal Club. Pa. Libr. Res. Pract. 2018, 6, 23–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Foronda, C.L.; Hudson, K.W.; Budhathoki, C. Use of Virtual Simulation to Impact Nursing Students’ Cognitive and Affective Knowledge of Evidence-Based Practice. Worldviews Evid. Based Nurs. 2017, 14, 168–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rojjanasrirat, W.; Rice, J. Evidence-based practice knowledge, attitudes, and practice of online graduate nursing students. Nurse Educ. Today 2017, 53, 48–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oh, E.G.; Yang, Y.R. Evidence-based nursing education for undergraduate students: A preliminary experimental study. Nurse Educ. Pract. 2019, 38, 45–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liou, S.-R.; Cheng, C.-Y.; Tsai, H.-M.; Chang, C.-H. Innovative Strategies for Teaching Nursing Research in Taiwan. Nurs. Res. 2013, 62, 335–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Whittaker, A.A. Effects of Team-Based Learning on Self-Regulated Online Learning. Int. J. Nurs. Educ. Sch. 2015, 12, 45–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Johnston, J.M.; Leung, G.M.; Fielding, R.; Tin, K.Y.; Ho, L.M. The development and validation of a knowledge, attitude and behaviour questionnaire to assess undergraduate evidence-based practice teaching and learning. Med. Educ. 2003, 37, 992–1000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ruzafa-Martinez, M.; Lopez-Iborra, L.; Moreno-Casbas, T.; Madrigal-Torres, M. Development and validation of the competence in evidence based practice questionnaire (EBP-COQ) among nursing students. BMC Med. Educ. 2013, 13, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Upton, D.; Upton, P. Development of an evidence-based practice questionnaire for nurses. J. Adv. Nurs. 2006, 54, 454–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Leach, M.J.; Gillham, D. Evaluation of the evidence-based practice attitude and utilization survey for complementary and alternative medicine practitioners. J. Eval. Clin. Pract. 2008, 14, 792–798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lewis, L.K.; Williams, M.T.; Olds, T.S. Development and psychometric testing of an instrument to evaluate cognitive skills of evidence based practice in student health professionals. BMC Med. Educ. 2011, 11, 77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Oh, E.G.; Yang, Y.L.; Sung, J.H.; Park, C.G.; Chang, A.M. Psychometric properties of Korean version of self-efficacy of evidence-based practice scale. Asian Nurs. Res. 2016, 10, 207–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wadgave, U.; Khairnar, M.R.; Kadu, T.S.; Chadha, G.K.; Wadgave, Y. Effect of training on evidence-based practice to undergraduate dental students. Int. J. Evid. Based Health 2020, 18, 101–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Levesque, M.; Gauthier-B., J.; Gagnon, P.; Bertulies-Esposito, B.; Hatcher, S.; Gagnon, L. Evaluation of an evidence-based medicine educational intervention in a regional medical campus. Can. Med. Educ. J. 2018, 9, e51–e58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Weathers, E. A Creative Teaching Method for Research and Evidence-Based Practice. Nurs. Educ. Perspect. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thomas, A.; Han, L.; Osler, B.P.; Turnbull, E.A.; Douglas, E. Students’ attitudes and perceptions of teaching and assessment of evidence-based practice in an occupational therapy professional Master’s curriculum: A mixed methods study. BMC Med. Educ. 2017, 17, 64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Mesh Terms | |
---|---|
Nursing | 1. Students, Nursing |
2. Nursing | |
3. Nurses | |
1 or 2 or 3 | |
Teaching strategies-educative innovations | 4. Models, Educational |
5. Education | |
6. Education, Distance | |
7. Distance Learning | |
8. Online Learning | |
9. Online Education | |
10. Health Education | |
11. Education, Nursing, Graduate | |
12. Teaching | |
13. Curriculum | |
14. Training | |
15. Educative Innovations | |
16. Blended learning | |
4 or 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 or 10 or 11 or 12 or 13 or 14 or 15 or 16 | |
Evidence-Based Practice—EBP | 17. Evidence-Based Practice |
18. Evidence-Based Nursing | |
17 or 18 |
Author et al. (Year) | Main Study Characteristics (Country, Years of Study, Population, Sample Size) | Aim of the Study | Type of Study | Intervention (Delivery Option, Type, Duration etc.) | Instrument (Name, Structure, Scale etc.) | Main Findings | CASP Score |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Kim et al. (2009) [38] | USA, 2007–2008 Nursing students. The experimental group (EG) (n = 88) received the E-FIT strategy intervention and the control group (CG) (n = 120) received standard teaching. | To assess the effectiveness of the evidence-based practice (EBP)-focused interactive teaching (E-FIT) strategy | Quasi-experimental, pre- and post-test study design with a control group | E-FIT intervention included a 2-h introductory lesson on the basic EBP principles and processes, as well as a description of the clinically integrated EBP group projects to be carried out throughout the semester in partnership with clinical preceptors at respective healthcare facilities. | Knowledge, Attitudes and Behaviors Questionnaire for EBP (Johnston et al. 2003) [46] | Post-test: EBP Knowledge (mean difference = 0.25; p = 0.001) EBP Use (mean difference = 0.26; p = 0.015) Attitudes toward EBP mean difference = −0.12; p = 0.398 Future Use of EBP mean difference = 0.13; p = 0.255 | 4 |
Zhang et al. (2012) [34] | China, 2009–2010 Undergraduate Nursing students (n = 74) | To evaluate the effectiveness of an educational program on the knowledge, attitudes and beliefs, and behaviour of EBP in undergraduate nursing students as well as to promote independent learning and cooperative abilities through SDL and workshop learning strategies. | Quasi-experimental, pre- and post-test study design without a control group | During clinical practice period in the last year: Phase 1 Self-Directed Learning (SDL) Process for EBP: Each learning package consisted of an introduction letter about learning process and requirements, a booklet for learning resources and objectives, and journal articles for workshop use. Phase 2 Workshop for Critical Appraisal of Literature: | Self-report questionnaire: KAB, contained 30 items which can be subdivided into three dimensions, that is, knowledge, attitudes and beliefs, and behavior about EBP. Last part asked questions about participants’ subjective view and satisfaction of their learning process. One open-ended question to assess their evaluation | Knowledge EBP ranging 8 to 24: Pre-test 11.51 ± 2.51 Post-test 17.11 ± 3.30 p < 0.0001 Attitudes EBP ranging 14 to 42: Pre-test 35.67 ± 5.43 Post-test 38.99 ± 4.04 p < 0.0001 Behaviour EBP ranging 8 to 24: Pre-test 10.99 ± 2.77 Post-test 15.32 ± 3.14 | 5 |
Liou et al. (2013) [44] | Taiwan, 2010, nursing students who were enrolled in a 2-year Registered Nurse-to-Bachelor of Science EG = 103 CG = 106 | To develop innovative teaching strategies that increase nursing students’ interests and engagement in research | Quasi-experimental, pre- and post-test study design with a control group | Intervention: innovative teaching strategies for a research course: collaborative learning techniques and evidence-based practice of learning were expected | -Attitudes toward Research Questionnaire; -Classroom Engagement Scale; -Self-Directed Learning Instrument; -Nursing Eight Core Competencies Scale; -Value of Teams survey; -Research knowledge test (objective test) A 10-item multiple choice test | Research knowledge test: Attitudes toward Research: Control: Pre-Test 64.7 (SD = 6.10) Post-test 65.8 (SD = 8.88) Experimental: Pre-test 64.5 (SD = 6.69) Post-test 73.0 (SD = 6.53) Classroom Engagement Scale: Control: Pre-test 34.4 (SD = 3.11) Post-test 34.8 (SD = 4.25) Experimental: Pre-test 35.5 (SD = 3.41) Post-test 37.3 (SD = 3.86) Value of Teams: Control: Pre-test 63.4 (SD = 4.45) Post-test 62.8 (SD = 6.07) Experimental: Pre-test 63.6 (SD = 4.64) 65.8 Post-test (SD = 4.43) Self-directed Learning Instrument: Control: Pre-test 74.5 (SD = 6.84) Post-test 76.0 (SD = 8.14) Experimental: Pre-test 75.5 (SD = 6.25) 78.9 Post-test (SD = 6.64) Nursing Eight Core Competencies Scale: Control: Pre-test 30.1 (SD = 3.31) Post-test 28.9 (SD = 4.37) Experimental: Pre-test 30.9 (SD = 3.44) Post-test 33.5 (SD = 3.56) Experimental group participants had a lower degree of pressure, and higher degrees of interest, enjoyment, and acceptance of the research course than the control group participants. | 6 |
Ruzafa-Martínez et al. (2016) [31] | Spain, 2010 Second-year nursing students (Bachelor Degree) (EG: n = 61) (CG: n = 59) | To evaluate the effectiveness of an EBP course on the EBP competence undergraduate nursing students | Quasi-experimental, pre- and post-test study design with a control group | Intervention: The 15-week educational intervention, it comprised 60 h in class plus 90 h of student work, with a minimum attendance requirement of 80%. Focused on the first four steps of EBP described by Melnyk et al. | Self-report questionnaire: EBP-COQ, a validated Spanish-language instrument specifically developed to evaluate the self-perceived EBP competence level in nursing students (Ruzafa-Martinez et al., 2013) [47]. Domains: Attitude, Knowledge and Skills. | EBP Competence (score 1–5): CG: mean(95%CI) Pre: 3.37 (3.25–3.50) Post: 3.62 (3.51–3.73) EG: mean (95%CI) Pre: 3.06 (2.93–3.19) Post: 4.11 (4.01–4.22) ANOVA time × group: p < 0.001 EBP Attitude (score 1–5): CG: mean (95% CI) Pre: 3.84 (3.65–4.03) Post: 3.92 (3.80–4.05) EG: mean(95%CI) Pre: 3.33 (3.14–3.52) Post: 4.28 (4.16–4.41) ANOVA time × group: p < 0.001 EBP Knowledge (score 1–5): CG: mean(95%CI) Pre: 2.51 (2.32–2.71) Post: 3.01 (2.87–3.15) EG: mean(95%CI) Pre: 2.82 (2.62–3.02) Post: 3.92 (3.77–4.06) 4.01ç ANOVA time × group: p < 0.001 EBP Skills (score 1–5): CG: mean(95%CI) Pre: 3.20 (3.01–3.38) Post: 3.49 (3.32–3.65) EG: mean(95%CI) Pre: 2.75 (2.56–2.94) Post: 4.01 (3.85–4.18) ANOVA time × group: p < 0.001 | 7 |
Hsieh, et al.(2016) [27] | Taiwan, 2012–2013, Registered Nurse-to-Bachelor of Science in Nursing program. Control group (n = 97) underwent “traditional lecture-based research course” Experimental group (n = 90) experienced “EBP-based research course” Randomly allocated by class | To examine the effect of integrating constructivist and evidence-based practice on student cognitive load and learning performance in a research course. | Experimental study with one control group. | Both group had three hours of instruction every week for thirteen weeks Intervention: EBP, cognitive theory, and constructivism were used to design the educational program. EBP was integrated into the research course with PowerPoint slides, the Great Cookie Experiment, exemplar analyses, asking questions and discussion, peer instruction, group discussion, individualized team guidance, research article critique and practice. Control: The standard research program included reading a required textbook, attending didactic lectures with PowerPoint slides, asking questions, and participating in group discussions. | Self-report Questionnaires: Cognitive Load Scale (CLS) Objective test: -Research Cognitive Test (0–100) includes 20 item multiple choice questions and 3-item essay questions based on the teaching objectives of each unit, to measure students’ individualized learning performance. -Mental efficiency -Team paper critique (0–100) -Qualitative feedback on course satisfaction | The mental load, mental effort, mental efficiency and research knowledge were higher in the research group than in the control 8.74 vs. 7.27, p < 0.001; 11.07 vs. 10.07, p = 0.009; 0.33 vs. −0.31, p < 0.001 and 70.61 vs. 44.92, p < 0.001 respectively. Additionally, introduction literature review and assignment requirement and writing were higher in experimental group than the control. | 8 |
Keib, et al. (2017) [35] | USA, 2012–2013 Third-year BSN students (2012, n = 55) (2013, n = 54) | The changes in perceptions, confidence and interest in research and EBP among nursing students were assessed. | Quasi-experimental, pre- and post-test study design without a control group | Intervention: Research and EBP course 3-credit hour, semester-long course introduced students to research and EBP concepts and required the completion of an EBP project that was presented at the conclusion of the course in an interprofessional poster session with nursing and pharmacy faculty and students. Methodology: included lectures, seminar assignments and discussions, and small group work. | Self-report questionnaire: Confidence in Research and EBP survey. Created by the investigators. The Research and EBP Perceptions items assessed students’ perceptions of the importance and usefulness of research, their understanding of research and EBP, and their plans to utilize research and EBP in their future practice. | Results are showed item by items, no global score. Research perceptions: In 2012: Understood difference between research and EBP (p < 0.001), research and EBP complement each other (p < 0.001), the usefulness of research in the nursing profession (p = 0.003). They more highly rated the amount of research experience they have in comparison to their peers (p = 0.021). More students strongly agreed they planned to use EBP in the future (p = 0.007). In 2013: More students agreed they planned to use EBP in the future (p = 0.007). Confidence in Research items In 2012 and 2013, there were significant improvements in all 19 Confidence in Research items | 4 |
Scurlock-Evans et al. (2017) [32] | UK, 2011–2014 pre-registration nursing students (n = 56) | To compare the impact of embedding EBP throughout the curriculum, with modular-based teaching, on pre-registration nursing students’ EBP profiles. | A longitudinal panel study design. | Modular-curriculum: research methods and research utilization skills through the same research methods module (in year 2 of their studies) Embedded-curriculum: All students are taught how to assess quality of literature/evidence in year 1; what EBP is, how it links with research methodology and process and ethics in year 2, and; all students then undertook an independent research project in their final year (which was explicitly packaged as cementing their research methods and EBP skills). | Self-report questionnaire: Student Evidence-Based Practice Questionnaire (S-EBPQ) completed in the first, second and third year of their course. | EBP implementation: differences overall between the modular- and embedded- curriculum groups (F(1, 54) = 1.11, p = 0.237; No statistically significant interaction effect between time and curriculum type (F(2, 108) = 3.67, p = 0.029 Attitudes towards EBP: no statistically significant differences between the two curriculum-type groups overall (F(1, 54) = 2.31, p = 0.135,) and no significant interaction between time and curriculum-type (F(1.71, 92.05) = 0.79 Knowledge and skills in retrieving and reviewing evidence: no significant difference overall between the two curriculum-type groups (F(1, 54) = 0.96, p = 0.331), a statistically significant interaction between time and curriculum-type was identified with a large sized effect (F(2, 108) = 6.34, p = 0.002 Knowledge and skills in applying and sharing EBP: no significant difference overall between the two curriculum-type groups (F(1, 54) = 0.02, p = 0.888), a statistically significant interaction between time and curriculum-type was identified with a large-sized effect (F(2, 108) = 7.14, p = 0.001 | 6 |
Singleton (2017) [28] | USA, 2008–2015, Doctor of Nursing Practice-Family Nurse Practitioner students (n = 54) | To assess the impact of a curriculum on EBP beliefs and implementation in Doctor or Nursing Practice-Family Nurse Practitioner (DNP-FNP) students. | Quasi-experimental, pre- and post-test study design without a control group | EBP curriculum EBP was identified as a program pillar and was threaded across all courses. The curriculum also included two specific EBP methods and technique courses, and three DNP project courses. During the DNP project courses, students worked as teams with a faculty mentor and a mentor from a clinical partner agency to complete an evidence-based clinical practice improvement project for the clinical partner agency. Faculty EBP mentors, all of whom were actively engaged in EBP, were embedded across the courses. The intensity of faculty mentorship increased as students began their DNP project work. | Melnyk´s Self-report questionnaires: -EBP Beliefs Scale (EBP-B) -EBP Implementation Scale (EBP-I) | EBP Beliefs Scale (EBP-B) pre-measure mean score was 3.89, and post-measure was 4.25. p < 0.001 EBP Implementation Scale (EBP-I)f: pre-measure mean score was 2.68, and post-measure was 3.61. p < 0.001 | 4 |
Hagler et al., (2012) [37] | USA, 2009–2011 Nurse preceptor participants recruited from seven hospitals (n = 160) | To test the effectiveness of a workshop designed to increase preceptor knowledge and endorsement of evidence-based practice | Quasi-experimental, pre- and post-test study design without a control group | A workshop for clinical experiences was held for eight and half days. | A questionnaire was completed before the workshop and was consisted of 21 questions related to demographic characteristics and 16 to EBP Beliefs Scale. The EBP scale was completed also after the workshop. | The EBP Beliefs Scale was improved significantly from pre-test to post-test (Mpre = 59.0, SDpre = 8.4, Mpost = 66.4, SDpost = 6.8, p < 0.001. The use of EBP was increased at a follow up period (1 to 25 months). | 8 |
Kim et al. (2019) [29] | Republic of Korea, Fourth-year nursing students, Bachelor in Nursing (EG: 22, CG: 22) MaRtA010711 | An education program evaluated the knowledge, skills, attitudes, competencies, and future use of EBP. | Quasi-experimental, pre- and post-test study design with a control group (pre-2 post; post1 2 weeks, post2 6 weeks) | Intervention: A 5 step EPB program of 4 weeks (8 sessions/20 h) took place. The program was based on Sackett et al. On the control group, no intervention was done. | Self-report questionnaire: Different instruments were used to measure (1) Knowledge of EBP and attitudes toward EBP (EBP COQ), (2) Competencies for EBP (12 items measured on a 5-point Likert scale; “EBP Competencies”, Essential Competencies for Evidence-Based Practice in Nursing), (3) Future Use of EBP (7 items measured on a 5-point Likert scale) of the Knowledge, Attitude and Behavior Questionnaire (KABQ), (4) Critical Thinking (35 items measured on a 5-point Likert scale Critical Thinking Disposition Scale) and (5) EBP Skills (Cognitive Skills of Evidence-Based Practice). | EBP knowledge (mean, SD) EG: Pre: 3.26 ± 0.40; Post1: 4.27 ± 0.51; Post2: 4.16 ± 0.46 CG: Pre: 3.27 ± 0.46; Post1: 3.34 ± 0.55; Post2: 3.33 ± 0.67 Group × time: p < 0.001 Competences EBP (mean, SD) EG: Pre: 3.06 ± 0.48; Post1: 4.34 ± 0.37 Post2: 4.18 ± 0.36 CG: Pre: 3.04 ± 0.61; Post1: 3.04 ± 0.51 Post2: 3.14 ± 0.55 Group × time: p < 0.001 EBP Attitude (mean, SD) EG: Pre: 3.67 ± 0.36; Post1: 4.33 ± 0.42 Post2: 4.24 ± 0.42 CG: Pre: 3.79 ± 0.32; Post1: 3.77 ± 0.34 Post2: 3.72 ± 0.34 Group × time: p < 0.001 Future use of EBP (mean, SD) EG: Pre: 3.83 ± 0.51; Post1: 4.33 ± 0.44 Post2: 4.38 ± 0.47 CG: Pre: 3.84 ± 0.55; Post1: 4.01 ± 0.56 Post2: 3.85 ± 0.46 Group × time: p < 0.001 Critical thinking (mean, SD) EG: Pre: 3.39 ± 0.35; Post1: 3.72 ± 0.36 Post2: 3.78 ± 0.37 CG: Pre: 3.35 ± 0.49; Post1: 3.29 ± 0.42 Post2: 3.30 ± 0.47 Group × time: p < 0.001 EBP Skills (mean, SD) EG: Post1:9.01 ± 1.52 CG: Post1: 3.44 ± 1.45; p < 0.001 EG: Post2: 7.66 ± 1.62; CG: Post2: 3.65 ± 1.63; p < 0.001 | 9 |
Diaz and Walsh (2018) (HAND-SEARCHING) [40] | USA, 32 students in their third year of study | To determine what effect a journal club as part of a nursing research course has on student learning in the undergraduate nursing classroom. | Quasi-experimental, pre- and post-test study design without a control group | A Journal club was incorporated at the curriculum with different meetings taking place after the regular classes. A meeting was held before the start of the semester and one at the end of the semester. | At the beginning a questionnaire with 14 questions was used while at the end a questionnaire with 18 items was used. | The 70% of participant reported positive statements about being part of the Journal club or found it helpful for learning how to critically appraise research. | 3 |
Author et al. (Year) | Main Study Characteristics (Country, Years of Study, Population, Sample Size) | Aim of the Study | Type of Study | Intervention (Delivery Option, Type, Duration etc.) | Instrument (Name, Structure, Scale etc.) | Main Findings | CASP Score |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Justham and Timmons (2005) [39] | UK, 2002, post-registration nursing students (n = 292) | The learning and attitude of post-registration nursing students were assessed after a web-based statistics test to teach statistics | Quasi-experimental. Pre-post-test study without control group | A 20 credits module titled ‘Evidence-Based Practice’ where an online statistics test was administered via WebCT site. The module addresses issues concerning the critical analysis and evaluation of a variety of sources of evidence relevant to patient/client care | Learning: statistic test from the WebCT test (objective test). Attitude: ‘Evaluation of the WebCT’ questionnaire by post (21 items) | Learning: First (pre) practice test mean percentage score 52.1%, and Second (post) assessed test was 92.6% (p = 0.000) Attitude: According qualitative data students have positive views with the use of the WebCT. | 1 |
Long et al. (2016) [26] | USA. and Middle-East (ME) 2013–2014 Quasi-experimental nursing students enrolled in the introductory courses in US, RN-BSN and MSN and in ME BSN (n = 23) RCTs undergraduate nutrition, and PharmD students (n = 159) | To report the results of the effectiveness of the EBR tool to improve the overall online research and critical appraisal skills of learners engaged in EBP. | Mixed-method, quasi-experimental, and two-population randomized controlled trial (RCT) design | Intervention: EBR tool (interactive technology-based tool usable from a computer, smartphone, or iPad to support student acquisition of online research and critical appraisal skills needed for EBP) Subjects received the same 30-min video training, standardizing the study protocol and explaining how to access and use the tool. The video protocol requested participants to work through all ten steps, open and explore every hyperlink, and answer the embedded questions to help guide the online literature search assignment. A library link specific to each institution was placed within the EBR tool, allowing participants to access their institution’s library. | Self-report Research questions: The EBR tool pre- and post-test, does the EBR tool intervention (a) improve the overall research skill of users? Does it (b) improve the ability of the user to distinguish the credibility of online source materials? | Quasi-experimental results (nursing students). Research skills: US/BSN: T1 (M) = 3.50 (SD 0.70) T2 (M) = 2.88 (SD 0.98) d = 0.62 (SD 0.81) (CI 95% 0.40–0.83); p = 0.001 ME/BSN: T1 (M) = 3.27 (SD 0.93) T2 (M) = 2.32 (SD 0.64) d = 0.95 (SD 0.84) (CI 95% 0.58–1.32); p = 0.001 Ability to distinguish credibility of online sources: US/BSN (58), p = 0.057, ME/BSN (22), p = 0.219, US/MSN (41), p = 0.070. | 3 |
Foronda et al. (2017) [41] | USA., 2016, master’s entry-level nursing students (n = 51) | To examine the impact of an in-class, group virtual simulation exercise on nursing students’ (a) cognitive knowledge of EBP and (b) affective knowledge about how evidence affects clinical decision-making. | Quasi-experimental, pre- and post-test study design without a control group | Virtual simulation using the Internet-based platform of CliniSpace and followed with a post-test. The entire exercise lasted about 30 min. | Self-report questions: Cognitive knowledge related to EBP five multiple-choice questions were asked. Affective knowledge about how evidence affects clinical decision-making. | Cognitive knowledge related to EBP: Median pretest 60% (IQR = 20) Median post-test score was 80% (IQR = 20) (p < 0.0001) Affective knowledge about how evidence affects clinical decision-making Pretest: 35% (agree) and 63% (strongly agree). Post-test scores increased to 23% rating it a 4 (agree) and 77% (strongly agree). Not p value shows | 3 |
Rojjanasrirat and Rice (2017) [42] | USA. 2011–2012 Nursing master students (n = 63) | To examine whether or not EBP content provided early in an online, graduate research/EBP course would change the knowledge, attitudes, and practice of EBP of students from before to after taking the course. | Quasi-experimental, pre- and post-test study design without a control group | Intervention: Online research/EBP course This 4-credit hour graduate nursing course was taught across a 16-week trimester in the first semester of the MSN curriculum. On-line classroom strategies were used to teach research content and the EBP process including weekly asynchronous discussions, case study analysis, quizzes/exams, research critique, and a final EBP project that incorporated all elements of the EBP process | Self-report questionnaire: Evidence-Based Practice Questionnaire (EBPQ) (Validated by Upton, 2006) [48] Skill/Knowledge, Attitude, Practice Facilitators and barriers to learning EBP concepts developed by the principal investigator were also included, consisted of 14 structured items | Overall EBPQ mean scores significantly improved after taking the EBP course (t (63) = −9.034, p < 0.001). Practice of EBP Post-test: (M = 74.06, SD = 9.04) Pre-test scores (M = 55.29, SD = 11.57, t (63) = −12.78, p = 0.001). Knowledge of EBP Post-test (M = 25.23, SD = 9.9) Pre-test (M = 23.42, SD = 9.41; p = 0.79 Attitudes toward EBP Post-test: (M = 21.11, SD = 3.51) Pre-test (M = 20.69, SD = 3.51); p = 0.43 | 3 |
Author et al. (Year) | Main Study Characteristics (Country, Years of Study, Population, Sample Size) | Aim of the Study | Type of Study | Intervention (Delivery Option, Type, Duration etc.) | Instrument (Name, Structure, Scale etc.) | Main Findings | CASP Score |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Whittaker (2015) [45] | USA. 2012–2013, Students enrolled in a second degree baccalaureate nursing program or a Registered Nurse completion program. CG (n = 98) EG (n = 86) | Evaluation of the impacts of a team-based learning (TBL) on self-regulated online learning outcomes in a blended under-graduate nursing research and EBP course. | Quasi-experimental, pre- and post-test study design with a control group | CG: traditional instructor-led (IL) EG: Intervention TBL The same online lessons were used for both the IL control semester and the TBL intervention semester. Students were expected to complete the weekly online content prior to coming to class. TBL classrooms utilize little face-to-face instructor lecture time. Pre-class assignments contain the foundational subject matter that the students are expected to learn prior to coming to class. Student accountability for class preparation is supported by the Readiness Assurance Process® (RAP) which includes a short pre-test, taken by individual students, at the beginning of class. Directly following the individual readiness pre-test, the groups discuss each question on the pre-test and reach agreement on the correct answer. The instructor then discusses pre-test questions with the entire class, providing feedback on the rationale for each correct response and answering any remaining questions students may have. | Self-regulated learning was measured by the amount of time that the student spent participating in pre-class online learning activities calculated, by the University Learning Management System, and included multiple viewing times Cognitive learning outcomes: Course examination scores. Mean scores from two 50-question multiple choice examinations. | Online viewing time (in seconds) Percent total time Control Group: 42.1% (SD: 32.1%) Experimental Group: 72.0% (SD:34.2%); p < 0.001 Examination Scores; range 0–1 (mean; SD) Control Group:0.75; 0.071 Experimental Group: 0.78; 0.071; p = 0.003. The mean examination score for the TBL group was 3.32% points higher than the mean examination score for the IL group. | 7 |
Leach et al. (2016) [33] | Australia, 2014 third-year nursing students enrolled in a Bachelor of Nursing program (n = 33) | To measure the impact of an undergraduate research education program on undergraduate student nurse attitude, skill and uptake of EBP (the STEP project). | Quasi-experimental, pre- and post-test study design without a control group. | A 16-week research education program, participants: Participation in weekly face-to-face tutorials/online activities is complemented by a series of recommended readings and formative assessments to extend and consolidate student learning. The first course, ‘Foundations of Research’. The second course, ‘Nursing Project’, is linked to and follows on from the first course. This course builds upon the critical appraisal of the literature in the context of appraising the literature to answer practice-based research questions (as developed in the first course). | Self-report questionnaire: Student nurse Attitude, Skill and Use of EBP, Barriers and facilitators of EBP uptake: The Evidence-Based Practice Attitude and Utilization Survey (EBASE) This 82-item instrument demonstrates good internal consistency, content validity and acceptable test–retest reliability (Leach & Gillham 2008) [49]. | EBP Attitude (median): Pre = 33; Post = 33; p = 0.238 EBP-related skills (median) Pre = 38;Post = 43; p < 0.001 Use of EBP (median) Pre = 5; post = 7; p = 0.002 Barriers and Facilitators to EBP uptake Not statistic differences in most of the items. It shows data item by item. | 2 |
Reid et al. (2017) [36] | UK, 2014–2015 Undergraduate nursing and midwifery students Pretest = 124 Posttest = 56 | The evidence-based practice was evaluated at the start and the end of the first year of nursing studies within a School of Nursing and Midwifery | Quasi-experimental, pre- and post-test study design without a control group | The module operated during the first year of studies. Different methods such as lectures, small groups, online, etc., were used. | Self-report questionnaires: Evidence Based Practice Beliefs Scale (16 items) Evidence Based Practice Implementation Scale. (18 items) | Results are showing item by item. Compares pre and post-test groups, not as repeated responses. Evidence Based Practice Beliefs Scale: In seven out of sixteen categories were found significant statistical differences. Evidence Based Practice Implementation Scale: 13 out of 18 categories. | 1 |
Mena-Tudela et al. (2018) [30] | Spain, 2013–2015 Second-year nursing students (n = 83) | The effectiveness of an educational program on the knowledge, skills and attitudes of evidence-based practice was evaluated. | Quasi-experimental, pre- and post-test study design without a control group (pre and 2 post measures) | Intervention: Cross-curricular EBP programme that was consisted of four hours in total (two theory and two computer lab session). | Self-report questionnaire: Evidence-Based Practice Competence Questionnaire (EBP-COQ) | Attitude toward EBP: (score 1–5) mean; 95% Pre: 3.47; 3.42–3.56 Post1: 3.55; 3.51–3.66 Post2: 3.55; 3.49–3.68 EBP Knowledge: (score 1–5) mean; 95% Pre: 2.82; 2.70–2.91 Post1: 3.36; 3.29–3.46 Post2: 3.45; 3.41–3.50 EBP Skills: (score 1–5) mean; 95% Pre:2.94; 2.85–3.00 Post1: 2.92; 2.86–3.01 Post2: 3.02; 2.90–3.05 Global EBP Competence: (score 25–125) Pre:79.83; 78.63–81.03 Post1: 84.53; 83.23–85.83 Post2: 84.91; 83.26–86.55 p < 0.001 | 4 |
Oh et al. (2019) [43] | Republic of Korea, Senior nursing students. EG = 21 CG = 24 | The effectiveness of an EBP education program was evaluated. | Quasi-experimental, pre- and post-test study design with a control group | Intervention: 30 h over five days during the summer vacation period was provided to the intervention group. In the EBP program, six modules were delivered as lectures. A group project with PBL was done with clinical scenarios. CBL was conducted to teach searching strategies of evidence on online databases. TBL was used in teaching “nursing study design.” Two EBP professionals (a school librarian and a clinical expert) were invited as special lecturers on searching databases and the application of EBP in hospitals. | Self-administered questionnaire Level of EBP knowledge (score 0–12): Utilized the Knowledge of Research Evidence Competencies (K-REC) instrument (Lewis et al., 2011) [50] EBP self-efficacy (score 26–260) SE-EBP scale, Korean version (Oh et al., 2016) [51]. Evidence utilization (score 10–40): questions from the Knowledge, Attitude, and Behavior (KAB) Questionnaire for EBP (Johnston et al., 2003) [46] | EBP knowledge EG: t0 (M = 4.61, SD = 1.19) to t1 (M = 8.44, SD = 1.24) CG: t0 (M = 4.35, SD = 1.76) to t1 (M = 3.95, SD = 1.84); p < 0.001 EBP self-efficacy EG: t0 (M = 165.05, SD = 45.31) to t1 (M = 221.76, SD = 25.56) CG: t0 (M = 170.96, SD = 35.71) to t1 (M = 165.96, SD = 31.96); p < 0.001 Effects on level of evidence utilization EG: t0 (resource utilization: M = 15.10, SD = 2.26; to t1 (M = 17.10, SD = 1.76; CG: resource utilization t0 (M = 15.17, SD = 2.22) to t1 (M = 15.38, SD = 2.12). p = 0.009 EG: database utilization: t0 (M = 10.90, SD = 1.90) t1 (M = 12.38, SD = 1.47); CG: database utilization t0 (M = 10.71, SD = 1.94) to t0 (M = 10.50, SD = 1.64; p = 0.006 | 5 |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Patelarou, A.E.; Mechili, E.A.; Ruzafa-Martinez, M.; Dolezel, J.; Gotlib, J.; Skela-Savič, B.; Ramos-Morcillo, A.J.; Finotto, S.; Jarosova, D.; Smodiš, M.; et al. Educational Interventions for Teaching Evidence-Based Practice to Undergraduate Nursing Students: A Scoping Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 6351. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17176351
Patelarou AE, Mechili EA, Ruzafa-Martinez M, Dolezel J, Gotlib J, Skela-Savič B, Ramos-Morcillo AJ, Finotto S, Jarosova D, Smodiš M, et al. Educational Interventions for Teaching Evidence-Based Practice to Undergraduate Nursing Students: A Scoping Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17(17):6351. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17176351
Chicago/Turabian StylePatelarou, Athina E., Enkeleint A. Mechili, María Ruzafa-Martinez, Jakub Dolezel, Joanna Gotlib, Brigita Skela-Savič, Antonio Jesús Ramos-Morcillo, Stefano Finotto, Darja Jarosova, Marta Smodiš, and et al. 2020. "Educational Interventions for Teaching Evidence-Based Practice to Undergraduate Nursing Students: A Scoping Review" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 17: 6351. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17176351
APA StylePatelarou, A. E., Mechili, E. A., Ruzafa-Martinez, M., Dolezel, J., Gotlib, J., Skela-Savič, B., Ramos-Morcillo, A. J., Finotto, S., Jarosova, D., Smodiš, M., Mecugni, D., Panczyk, M., & Patelarou, E. (2020). Educational Interventions for Teaching Evidence-Based Practice to Undergraduate Nursing Students: A Scoping Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(17), 6351. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17176351