Next Article in Journal
Predictors of Mental Health Service Utilization among Frontline Healthcare Workers during the COVID-19 Pandemic
Previous Article in Journal
“Step by Step We Were Okay Now”: An Exploration of the Impact of Social Connectedness on the Well-Being of Congolese and Iraqi Refugee Women Resettled in the United States
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 20
Issue 7
10.3390/ijerph20075325
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Translating and Validating the Vietnamese Version of the Health Sciences Evidence-Based Practice Questionnaire

by
Quyen Thao Nguyen
1,2,
Mei-Ling Yeh
1,3,*,
Ly Thi Hai Ngo
2 and
Chiehfeng Chen
3,4,5
1
School of Nursing, National Taipei University of Nursing and Health Sciences, 365 Mingde Road, Taipei City 112, Taiwan
2
Department of Midwifery, Faculty of Nursing and Medical Technology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy at Ho Chi Minh City, 201 Nguyen Chi Thanh Street, Ho Chi Minh City 70000, Vietnam
3
Cochrane Taiwan, Taipei Medical University, 252 Wuxing Street, Taipei City 110, Taiwan
4
Department of Public Health, School of Medicine, College of Medicine, Taipei Medical University, 252 Wuxing Street, Taipei City 110, Taiwan
5
Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Evidence-Based Medicine Center, Wan Fang Hospital, Taipei Medical University, No. 111, Sec. 3, Xinglong Street, Taipei City 116, Taiwan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20(7), 5325; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20075325
Submission received: 20 January 2023 / Revised: 15 February 2023 / Accepted: 24 February 2023 / Published: 30 March 2023
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
No validated instrument is available for assessing the evidence-based practice capacity of Vietnamese health professionals. This study aimed to translate and validate the Health Sciences Evidence-Based Practice questionnaire (HS-EBP) from English to Vietnamese and ascertain its psychometric properties. Data were collected from two obstetric hospitals in Vietnam. Participants: A total of 343 midwives were randomly selected. The HS-EBP questionnaire was translated by a group of bilingual experts into Vietnamese (HS-EBP-V). Content validity was assessed by two experts. Internal consistency and test–retest reliabilities were assessed using Cronbach’s α and intraclass correlation (ICC), respectively. Construct validity was assessed using the contrasted groups approach. As a result, the content validity index of the HS-EBP-V reached 1.0. For the individual subscales, Cronbach’s α was 0.92–0.97 and ICC was between 0.45 and 0.66. The validity of the contrasted-groups approach showed discrimination by a significant difference in the subscale scores among diploma holders compared with bachelor’s degree holders (p < 0.001). The validation of the HS-EBP questionnaire indicated satisfactory psychometric properties. The results indicate that the HS-EBP is a reliable and valid instrument which assesses the competencies of as well as facilitators of and barriers to the five steps of EBP among midwives. The HS-EBP-V was deemed a reliable and validated tool for assessing the competency and application of EBP among Vietnamese healthcare professionals.

1. Introduction

Evidence-based medicine was brought up to emphasise the role of scientific research in clinical decision-making in 1992 [1]. The evidence-based paradigm was then extended to all health professions, in order to encourage them to adopt a critical and objective approach. All healthcare professionals—medical, nursing, and comedical—are required to perform evidence-based practice (EBP). EBP incorporates three components of the best available evidence, practitioners’ clinical expertise, and patients’ expectations [2]. On the basis of this definition, the five essential steps of EBP were described, including formulating answerable questions, finding the best evidence, appraising the evidence, applying them in clinical practice, and evaluating performance [3]. These steps have been the basis for both practising and teaching EBP. They can be applied as a foundation in healthcare systems to improve quality and safety, provide optimal outcomes, and reduce costs [4,5]. Moreover, EBP boosts professional growth and career development and brings job empowerment and satisfaction as it engages healthcare professionals in lifelong learning and builds on professional expertise [6,7,8]. EBP is also inextricably connected to shared-decision making whereby reliable evidence is incorporated into the decision making process, so that patients’ preferences and decisions are evidence-informed.
Midwives play an important role in health care teams, and attribute direct, independent and autonomous responsibilities in monitoring and coordinating care and treatments [9]. High-quality midwifery care improves over 50 health-related outcomes; however, to improve maternal and neonatal health, strengthening quality midwifery care is required [10]. Therefore, midwives should have competencies to think critically, analyse complex situations, perform health assessment, and make decisions based on research evidence. Gaining the knowledge and skill and displaying a good attitude to EBP is important to make midwives establish and maintain the behaviour of practicing evidence-based care in their profession. Because of these merits, the first Sicily statement outlined that it is a minimum requirement for all healthcare professionals to understand and implement the principles and process of EBP [3].
EBP has been recognised as one of the core competencies necessary for the continuous improvement of the quality and safety of healthcare in the United States [11]. Since 2007, the Taiwan National Health Research Institutes has provided EBP-related information resources and promotional activities for healthcare professionals of regional hospitals [12]. Today, the introduction of EBP education in nursing curricula is strongly recommended and even compulsory in many countries such as the United States [13], Australia [14] and United Kingdom [15]. Correspondingly, the Vietnamese Ministry of Health approved EBP as a core component of Vietnamese nursing-midwifery practice in the national competency standards [16]. Although the volume of discussions on EBP has increased exponentially in the last decade in Vietnam, only physicians are familiar with the concept of EBP. In other health-allied professions including midwifery, the term EBP seems obscure and confusing. The importance of maternal and child health is paramount, and the World Health Organization has particularly emphasized the development of the health of mother and baby [17]. Among the various groups involved in the health of the mother and baby, midwives have the highest chance of providing the best care for promoting maternal and baby health [18]. The midwives play a critical role in providing primary care for saving mothers’ life; therefore, improving the quality of midwifery care is paramount. However, in Vietnam, few studies have been conducted in midwifery, and no clinical study has involved midwives. It is critical to have a measurement tool to examine the current situation of EBP among midwives, which will allow appropriate training to be offered to midwives.
EBP competencies refer to four attributes, which are knowledge, attitudes, skills, and performance. Globally, many EBP teaching strategies have been used and evaluated; however, a lack of EBP knowledge and skills as well as inadequate enthusiasm and attitudes are still among the most commonly reported barriers to practising EBP [19,20,21], including among healthcare professionals in Vietnam [22,23]. To increase EBP competencies, continuing medical education is crucial; however, most instruments used in interventional studies are of low quality, and none can evaluate all five EBP steps [24]. The EBP evaluation tools have been discipline-specific and undertaken primarily in the fields of medicine, physical therapy, and most recently, in nursing [25]. Certain questionnaires measure EBP competencies; however, they evaluate only one [26] or two [27] attributes of competencies.
In addition, to assess EBP competencies, performance-based measurements are objective and deliver high quality to reduce bias in self-report questionnaires [25]. Benner asserted that nursing competence assessment should be grounded in real practice within a situational context, under pressure, and over time [28]. Obviously, knowledge tests could be better fit to measures of actual performance of complex tasks such as EBP implementation. Six validated performance-based EBP knowledge and skill measurement tools are available: the Berlin questionnaire [29], Assessing Competency in Evidence-Based Medicine tool [30], Fresno test [31], Evidence-Based Practice Knowledge Assessment in Nursing [32], Taylor’s questionnaire [33], and Utrecht questionnaire [34]. However, none of them measures EBP competencies across all five steps. Although they are validated and relatively objective, the measurements comprise clinical scenarios and open-ended questions, meaning that they are time-consuming and require experts to interpret and grade the answers [25]. No standard exists for performance-based assessment, and the tools have been limited to the field of medicine [30] or nursing [32,35,36].
To overcome these disadvantages, self-reported instruments which have been used to evaluate self-perceived EBP competencies are simpler, cheaper, and more feasible alternatives [37]. The nursing practice questionnaire [38], revised Evidence-Based Practice questionnaire [27], Developing Evidence-Based Practice questionnaire [39], Evidence-Based Practice Beliefs and Implementation Scales [40], Evidence-Based Nursing Attitude questionnaire [41], as well as questionnaires for evidence-based medicine [42] and evidence-based nursing [43] have been developed and used in many studies. However, these questionnaires are not entirely suitable for measuring EBP competencies. They measure neither the three attributes of competence nor the five steps of the EBP process.
A newly developed instrument, the Health Sciences Evidence-Based Practice questionnaire (HS-EBP), addresses the aforementioned shortcomings of the existing tools and can thus evaluate the effects of the EBP’s educational interventions. The HS-EBP questionnaire includes five domains: beliefs and attitudes, results from scientific research, development of professional practice, assessment of results, and barriers and facilitators [44]. The components of the domain of results from scientific research include the first three steps of the EBP process: the formulation of clinical questions, search for and recovery of the best evidence, and critical appraisal. The domain of development of professional practice corresponds to step 4, which is a professional’s ability for individual judgement and actions, and the preferences of patients as well as the use of other potential sources of information for decision-making. The domain of assessment of results constitutes the last step, which is the evaluation of effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. These three domains evaluate the knowledge and skills, especially in EBP application, of health professionals. The beliefs and attitudes domain reflects the professionals’ beliefs and attitudes in relation to EBP. The barriers and facilitators domain refers to the organisational aspects or context structure in which practice takes place and constitutes a determining element for implementing EBP in clinical settings. The domains of beliefs and attitudes and barriers and facilitators influence all the steps of the EBP process. The HS-EBP questionnaire evaluates EBP competencies and its application across the healthcare discipline as it considers EBP in a transdisciplinary way [45]. However, no Vietnamese translation of the HS-EBP questionnaire is available; this hinders the evaluation of EBP competencies and its appropriate and comprehensive application in the Vietnamese population. This study aimed to translate the HS-EBP questionnaire from English to Vietnamese and ascertain its psychometric properties.

2. Methodology

This study had two phases: the translation of the HS-EBP questionnaire and the assessment of its reliability and validity.

2.1. Phase I: Forward and Back Translating the HS-EBP Questionnaire

After obtaining permission from the developers [44], the HS-EBP questionnaire was translated from the original English language into Vietnamese by using forward and backward translation [46]. The linguistic translation was performed using a decentred strategy to ensure the meaning and meaning equivalence in the two cultures. Therefore, first, the original English version of the HS-EBP questionnaire was independently translated to Vietnamese by three translators, including one English teacher (NT), one nursing lecturer (PH), and one obstetrician (NT). Second, the three translated versions were compared and contrasted by a team (ML, NT, MD, and CH) to reach a draft agreement of the meaning in the Vietnamese version of the HS-EBP questionnaire. Third, the Vietnamese version was independently back-translated into English by other two translators (NT and TA) blinded to the original questionnaire, and this version was compared with the original English version by a native English-speaking senior instructor (GC). Any significant discrepancy detected was addressed so that the Vietnamese version would have identical meaning to the original version. All the translators involved were bilingual in Vietnamese and English and familiar with both cultures. Finally, in-depth cognitive interviews were conducted to assess participants’ understanding of the questions and specific terms and to identify difficulties with the response choices. This approach allowed us to make sure that the translated items retained the same meaning as the original items [47]. The completed version of the HS-EBP questionnaire was assessed using a pilot sample of 17 midwives to ensure understanding of the intended meaning of each item. A researcher conducted a verbal cognitive interview, asking the respondents to elaborate what they thought of each questionnaire item and their corresponding response. After this test, the Vietnamese version of the HS-EBP questionnaire (HS-EBP-V) was finalised.

2.2. Phase II: Validating the HS-EBP-V

2.2.1. Participants

Two qualified nurse teachers who teach EBP evaluated the content validity of the questionnaire. Considering the respondent-to-item ratio of 5:1, a minimum sample of 300 midwives was required [48]. Midwives with more than one year of clinical experience and working at either of two obstetrics and gynaecology hospitals in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, were invited and randomly selected from department personnel directory. Of them, 30 midwives completed the HS-EBP-V twice at an interval of 2 weeks to assess test–retest reliability. Participants’ demographic characteristics included age, marital status, educational level, working department, years of working experience, EBP-related learning experience, and English competence level.

2.2.2. Research Design

This study validated the HS-EBP questionnaire based on the measurement theory [46].

2.2.3. Measurements

The original 60-item HS-EBP questionnaire included five subscales: beliefs and attitudes, results from scientific research, development of professional practice, assessment of results, and barriers and facilitators [44]. The questionnaire was developed using a modified Delphi technique based on a heterogeneous group of 32 experts encompassing nurses, physiotherapists, physicians and psychologists [45]. Each item was rated on a 10-point Likert scale (ranging from 1 to 10), with higher scores indicating a greater degree of agreement. The components of the domain of results from scientific research include the first three steps of the EBP process: the formulation of clinical questions, search for and recovery of the best evidence, and critical appraisal. The domain of development of professional practice corresponds to step 4, which is a professional’s ability for individual judgement and actions, and the preferences of patients as well as the use of other potential sources of information for decision-making. The domain of assessment of results constitutes the last step, which is the evaluation of effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. These three domains evaluate the knowledge and skills, especially in EBP application, of health professionals. The beliefs and attitudes domain reflects the professionals’ beliefs and attitudes in relation to EBP. The barriers and facilitators domain refers to the organisational aspects or context structure in which practice takes place and constitutes a determining element for implementing EBP in clinical settings. The domains of beliefs and attitudes and barriers and facilitators influence all the steps of the EBP process. The questionnaire demonstrates sufficient measurement properties, in terms of internal consistency with Cronbach’s alpha ranging from 0.84 to 0.96, construct validity and criterion validity [44].

2.2.4. Procedures

After randomly selecting the midwives, the researchers approached the midwives at their workplaces, explained the research aims, requested their consent for participation in the study, and asked them to fill the electronic version of HS-EBP-V and a sociodemographic survey through Google Forms. The request for research participation came from a researcher who had no control over the work performance of hospital staff. Thus, the recruitment strategy was perceived by the participants as not coercive. Participants were then randomly selected to participate in a cognitive interview. The cognitive interview further investigated the content validity of the HS-EBP-V by providing insight into what the respondents actually reflected upon while answering the questionnaire.

2.2.5. Data Analysis

The item-objective relevance to determining content validity was used to determine the item-level content validity index (I-CVI) and instrument-level content validity index (S-CVI) [44]. The CVI was calculated using the ratio of scores 3 and 4 to the total number of experts. I-CVI levels of ≥0.78 and S-CVI levels of ≥0.90 are recommended [49]. Cronbach’s alpha was used to estimate internal consistency reliability; a value of at least 0.70 has been suggested to indicate adequate internal consistency [50]. ICC was used to calculate test–retest reliability, and its 95% confidence intervals were calculated based on consistency and a two-way mixed-effects model. To ascertain the extent to which the two sets of scores were correlated, an ICC value of <0.5 indicated poor reliability; an ICC value of 0.5–0.74 indicated moderate reliability; and ICC value of 0.75–0.9 indicated good reliability; and an ICC value of >0.9 indicated excellent reliability [51]. Construct validity was determined using a contrasted groups approach and the independent t-test, in which the top 160 scores of 342 study participants were divided into two groups by education levels, and diploma and bachelor’s degree holders (n = 80 each) [46]. Data are presented as the mean and standard deviation (SD) or frequencies and percentages. All statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS, version 26.0 (SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA), and p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

2.2.6. Ethical Consideration

All participants were provided a detailed explanation of the study purpose and procedures, and written informed consent was obtained before data collection. Anonymity was maintained by assigning code numbers to each answer sheet. Participation in the study was voluntary, and the participants could withdraw from the study at any time without having it affect their work.

3. Results

3.1. Participants

A total of 342 questionnaires were distributed and collected. A high response rate and completeness of the data was observed (100%). Table 1 presents the participants’ demographic characteristics. The mean age was 35.49 (SD = 7.57) years, and the mean number of years of professional working experience was 12.34 (SD = 7.33) years. Nearly 50% had a bachelor’s degree. A large proportion worked in inpatient departments (n = 248, 72.51%) and reported having a professional licence (n = 338, 98.83%). Most midwives were married (n = 236, 69.01%) and had multiple children (n = 135, 39.47%). In addition, the mean level of reading difficulty of English articles was 6.84 (SD = 2.19). Approximately half of the participants (n = 187, 54.68%) learned about EBP when studying at school. Most participants had no previous experience in asking an answerable clinical question (n = 153, 44.74%), searching studies (n = 211, 62%), or appraising research articles (n = 274, 80.12%). More than half of the participants had learned how to apply EBP in clinical practice (n = 206, 60%) and had experience in applying EBP in clinical practice (n = 180, 52.63%).

3.2. Reliability and Validity for the HS-EBP

Table 2 summarises the results of the HS-EBP-V subscales and shows that the mean standardised scores ranged from 83.31 (SD = 12.44) to 89.44 (SD = 9.47). Cronbach’s alpha for the internal consistency of the five subscales was 0.92–0.97, indicating good internal consistency. The ICC for the HS-EBP-V was 0.45–0.66, indicating low to moderate stability. The I-CVI and S-CVI were 1.00, which indicated the high content validity of the items the of HS-EBP-V.
Table 3 presents the results of the independent t-test for the validity of the contrasted-groups approach; the mean scores in four subscales were significantly higher among bachelor’s degree holders than diploma holders (p < 0.001).

3.3. Cognitive Interview

Cognitive interviews were administered to 17 participants, with an average duration of 60 min each to ensure understanding of the intended meaning of each item in the HS-EBP-V. The results revealed that the interviewees had difficulty in answering items containing terms such as evidence-based practice, study design, PICO question, methodology, and database because of the lack of knowledge on EBP. Modifications to fix these problems were not made for these terminologies, but the EBP training programme should be conducted in the future to improve EBP competencies.

4. Discussion

This study translated the HS-EBP questionnaire from the original English language into Vietnamese by using forward and backward translation. The psychometric properties of the HS-EBP-V yielded satisfactory reliability and validity. This is the first study to provide the Vietnamese version of the HS-EBP questionnaire. First, the HS-EBP-V demonstrated good content validity and had five domains: beliefs and attitudes, results from scientific research, development of professional practice, assessment of results, and barriers and facilitators for Vietnamese midwives. These findings were consistent with those of Fernández-Domínguez et al. in which the best fit corresponded to the five domains [44]. Most items of the HS-EBP-V were relevant to their own domain objectives according to all experts’ consensus in relation to the level of the item, and the computed scale relevance, as CVI was excellent. As Fernández-Domínguez et al. claimed, the questionnaire was well designed, applied the utmost methodological rigour, and provided a connection between theoretical claims and empirical data [44]. In addition, construct validity in terms of the contrasted groups approach in this study suggested good validity.
The HS-EBP-V is the first measure of EBP competency and application in Vietnamese which covers the five steps of the EBP process that correlate with each other. The existing Vietnamese scales of EBP did not target the entire EBP process, such as EBP knowledge [52], readiness for EBP, barriers to EBP scales [53], and EBP attitudes and beliefs [54]. It has been argued that proficiency in critical appraisal may not be an essential pre-requisite for EBP, and thus it may not be necessary to evaluate this step of the EBP process [55]. The instrument developed by McCluskey and Bishop has scoring weighted differently among the steps, as the developers supposed that the emphasis was placed on making the focus of the PICO questions clear to find the most appropriate articles to inform practice [56]. Tilson stressed the importance of including assessment of the application and auditing step [57]. However, the content validity of EBP questionnaires has been critiqued for the inability to measure the entire EBP process [24,25]; hence, these are unable to provide valuable insights into EBP competencies for nurse-midwives. As all dimensions of EBP are covered by the measurements, the five-step EBP process would be assessed more comprehensively. Note that EBP competencies may differ across healthcare professions with contrasting experience levels, such as novice versus expert learners [58].
The HS-EBP-V demonstrated excellent internal consistency and reliability, which is consistent with other versions [8,44]. This indicates the consistency across HS-EBP-V items. In general, all the HS-EBP questionnaire items reflected the same underlying EBP construct, suggesting that the Vietnamese version is reliable. Notably, the stability of the HS-EBP-V was confirmed within a 2-week interval, with poor reliability observed in the barriers and facilitators subscale and moderate reliability in the other subscale. This is similar to the findings reported for the original HS-EBP questionnaire [44]. This problem has emerged from the initial version in the stage in which the domain structures and key contents of the questionnaire were developed [45]. The questionnaire developers suggested a better operational definition of these attributes. For example, barriers/facilitators could be the description of the organisational aspect or context structure in which the practice takes place [59], or of supportive cultures for EBP [44]. The EBP process is complex [3], and the related barriers and facilitators are also dynamic. Barriers to EBP implementation are also related to individual aspects, including a lack of time to read the literature, insufficient proficiency in the English language, a lack of ability to work with computers, and a lack of autonomy to change practice [60]. This makes the operationalisation more difficult. Another explanation for this poor reliability may be related to the study sample, which comprised only midwives. A sample that is too homogenous may lead to low variability in the subscale scores [61]. In addition, certain background characteristics, such as EBP experience, may also have contributed to the poor stability. The participants in this study felt that the questions were repetitive; thus, some respondents, perhaps due to a lack of EBP background knowledge, could not differentiate between items. In other words, they may have interpreted items in the same manner and provided the same answers, but they may have not maintained stability in their interpretation and answers across time. To confirm the optimal stability of the reliability of the HS-EBP-V, further research on EBP competency and application is warranted.
The validity of the contrasted groups approach was demonstrated as the HS-EBP-V discriminated between midwives with diplomas and bachelor’s degree in terms of EBP competencies and applications in this study. This is similar to the findings reported for the original HS-EBP questionnaire [8,44]. This is because in Vietnam, EBP is included in bachelor of nursing-midwifery programmes. EBP must be prioritised in all nursing-midwifery curricula and in the context of continuing education to help nurses and midwives develop EBP competencies as well as positive attitudes and beliefs, which are relevant for its application in routine clinical practice. Nowadays, EBP is the global practical model for international healthcare providers and interprofessional collaboration; therefore, EBP empowers, inspires and supports nurse-midwives to maintain their professional development and practice worldwide. On average, the participants’ scores in this study were higher across all the subscales than those from previous studies [8,44]. This is because the nurse-midwives in this study perceived less barriers in their working environments and were encouraged to apply EBP as well. Nurse-midwives used to make decisions based on their traditional clinical experiences. A paradigm shift is now starting to arise as nurse-midwives are introduced to and easily have access to research, conference, seminars, so that they perceive and acknowledge that scientific information is meaningful to themselves and patients. Additionally, clinicians are encouraged to engage in research and quality improvement projects to meet the criteria for professional practice according to the Vietnam Quality Hospital Quality Index 2016 promulgated by the Ministry of Health [62]. Another reason for the scores could be social desirability and the tendency to rush to complete an online survey [63]. Moreover, in Vietnamese culture, the participants may also mark-up answers because they may be afraid of findings that might show the limitations of an organisation [64].

5. Strengths and Weaknesses

This study applies methodological theories to guide the transparent translation, cross-cultural adaption, evaluation, and reporting of measurement properties. Moreover, the random sampling method and the high response rate help reduce the sampling bias. This sample size was adequate for evaluating internal consistency, test–retest reliability, and the validity of the contrasted groups approach. This is the first study to validate a questionnaire measuring Vietnamese midwives’ EBP competencies and applications.
This study also has some weaknesses. First, all midwives were recruited from only two hospitals, thus limiting the generalisability of the study findings. Second, participants may have overestimated their actual competencies and applications in the self-reported online questionnaires. Moreover, assessing EBP competence and application in all five EBP steps with one instrument remains a challenge. Self-perception questionnaires such as the HS-EBP questionnaire join the debate surrounding scores obtained using more objective instruments in order to measure actual performance in different clinical settings. Finally, all participants were female, which may have introduced a sex bias.

6. Conclusions

The HS-EBP-V is a reliable and valid tool for effectively assessing EBP competencies among and its application by Vietnamese healthcare professionals and identifying barriers and facilitators of EBP. Furthermore, the HS-EBP-V can be used in research to evaluate the impact of efforts of implementing and maximising EBP. Indicating the deficient knowledge and skills can help in designing educational curricula. The HS-EBP-V allows assessment on the individual and organisational levels. On the individual level, self-evaluation by using this questionnaire can help professionals determine their limitations in EBP competence that influence the process of clinical reasoning and decision-making, such as the beliefs and attitudes of professionals towards EBP. On the organisational level, it can highlight barriers to and facilitators and EBP application, thereby allowing organisations to identify and address the issues, including providing resources or training on EBP to their staff. Information gathered from the administration of the HS-EBP-V can assist policymakers in identifying the level of knowledge, practice, and barriers of EBP and in improving its uptake in clinical practice.
The HS-EBP-V can be used as a validated questionnaire to assess EBP competence on the individual level, especially for Vietnamese midwives. More studies should be conducted on this questionnaire with many different professional roles and types of evidence to confirm its validity in clinics and interventions. Further research should involve hospitals of different levels to expand the generalisability of the results. A more sex-balanced cohort including male practitioners should also be obtained. The validity of the HS-EBP-V questionnaire can be approved by conducting an intervention study not only for midwives but also for other healthcare professionals.

Author Contributions

Q.T.N.: research design, investigation, data collection and writing. M.-L.Y.: research design, investigation, data analysis and writing. L.T.H.N.: data collection and writing. C.C.: data analysis and writing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was funded by the Ministry of Science and Technology, grant number MOST 109—2511-H-227-004-MY2.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical approval was obtained from Board of Ethics in Biomedical Research of University of Medicine and Pharmacy at Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam (No. 924/HDDD-DHYD).

Informed Consent Statement

Written informed consent has been obtained from the patient(s) to publish this paper.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. Evidence-Based Medicine. A new approach to teaching the practice of medicine. JAMA 1992, 268, 2420–2425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Sackett, D.L.; Rosenberg, W.; Gray, J.A.M.; Haynes, R.B.; Richardson, W.S. Evidence based medicine: What it is and what it isn’t. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2007, 455, 3–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Dawes, M.; Summerskill, W.; Glasziou, P.; Cartabellotta, A.; Martin, J.; Hopayian, K.; Porzsolt, F.; Burls, A.; Osborne, J. Sicily statement on evidence-based practice. BMC Med. Educ. 2005, 5, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Chiwaula, C.H.; Chinkhata, M.; Kamera, H.; Haruzivishe, C. Evidence Based Practice: A Concept Analysis. Health Syst. Policy Res. 2018, 5, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Melnyk, B.M.; Fineout-Overholt, E. Evidence-based practice in nursing & healthcare. In A Guide to Best Practice, 3rd ed.; Wolters Kluwer: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  6. Kim, S.C.; Stichler, J.F.; Ecoff, L.; Brown, C.E.; Gallo, A.-M.; Davidson, J.E. Predictors of Evidence-Based Practice Implementation, Job Satisfaction, and Group Cohesion Among Regional Fellowship Program Participants. Worldviews Evid. Based Nurs. 2016, 13, 340–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Oikarainen, A.; Perälä, M.; Holopainen, A. Facilitating Evidence-Based Practice in Nursing and Midwifery in the WHO European Region. 2017. Available online: http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/348020/WH06_EBP_report_complete.pdf?ua=1 (accessed on 19 January 2023).
  8. Yeh, M.L.; Chung, M.H.; Dai, H.D.; Chang, B.Y. A LFC Project: Assessment of the Use of Evidenced-Based Practice among Hospital-Based Nurses in Taiwan; Taiwan Nurses Association: Taipei City, Taiwan, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  9. Yost, J.; Ganann, R.; Thompson, D.R.; Aloweni, F.; Newman, K.; Hazzan, A.A.; McKibbon, A.; Dobbins, M.; Ciliska, D. The effectiveness of knowledge translation interventions for promoting evidence-informed decision-making among nurses in tertiary care: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Implement. Sci. 2015, 10, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  10. World Health Organization. Strengthening Quality Midwifery Education for Universal Health Coverage 2030: Framework for Action. 2019. Available online: https://www.who.int/maternal_child_adolescent/topics/quality-of-care/midwifery/strengthening-midwifery-education/en/ (accessed on 30 November 2022).
  11. Institute of Medicine (US). Evidence-Based Medicine and the Changing Nature of Healthcare: 2007 IOM Annual Meeting Summary. 2008. Available online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK52822/ (accessed on 30 November 2022).
  12. Chiu, Y.-W.; Weng, Y.-H.; Lo, H.-L.; Shih, Y.-H.; Hsu, C.-C.; Kuo, K.N. Impact of a nationwide outreach program on the diffusion of evidence-based practice in Taiwan. Int. J. Qual. Health Care 2010, 22, 430–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. American Association of Colleges of Nursing. Hallmarks of the professional nursing practice environment. J. Prof. Nurs. 2002, 18, 295–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Waters, D.; Crisp, J.; Rychetnik, L.; Barratt, A. The Australian experience of nurses’ preparedness for evidence-based practice. J. Nurs. Manag. 2009, 17, 510–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Brooke, J.; Hvalič-Touzery, S.; Skela-Savič, B. Student nurse perceptions on evidence-based practice and research: An exploratory research study involving students from the University of Greenwich, England and the Faculty of Health Care Jesenice, Slovenia. Nurs. Educ. Today 2015, 35, e6–e11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ministry of Health. Chuẩn năng lực cơ bản của hộ sinh Việt Nam. (342/QĐ-BYT). Ha Noi, Vietnam. 2014. Available online: https://thukyluat.vn/vb/quyet-dinh-342-qd-byt-nam-2014-phe-duyet-chuan-nang-luc-co-ban-ho-sinh-viet-nam-3d2f7.htm (accessed on 30 November 2022). (In Vietnamese)
  17. The Nursing and Midwifery Council. Standards of Proficiency for Midwives. 2019. Available online: https://www.nmc.org.uk/ (accessed on 30 November 2022).
  18. World Health Organization. Maternal, Newborn, Child and Adolescent Health. 2020. Available online: https://www.who.int/maternal_child_adolescent/documents/mothers/en (accessed on 30 November 2022).
  19. Available online: https://www.itmedicalteam.pl/abstract/knowledge-attitudes-and-practice-about-evidencebased-practice-a-jordanian-study-105948.html (accessed on 19 January 2023).
  20. Alqahtani, N.; Oh, K.M.; Kitsantas, P.; Rodan, M. Nurses’ evidence-based practice knowledge, attitudes and implementation: A cross-sectional study. J. Clin. Nurs. 2020, 29, 274–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Metz, M.J.; Veerbeek, M.A.; Twisk, J.W.R.; van der Feltz-Cornelis, C.M.; de Beurs, E.; Beekman, A.T.F. Shared decision-making in mental health care using routine outcome monitoring: Results of a cluster randomised-controlled trial. Soc. Psychiatry Psychiatr. Epidemiol. 2019, 54, 209–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  22. Dao, H.T.; Pichaiyongwongdee, S.; Sullivan, P.E.; Prasertsukdee, S.; Apinonkul, B. Are physical therapists in Viet Nam ready to implement evidence-based practice? A survey. BMC Med. Educ. 2018, 18, 317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Nguyen, T.N.M.; Wilson, A. Knowledge, skills, and attitudes to implementing best practice in hospitals in Central Vietnam. Int. J. Evid. Based Health 2016, 14, 142–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Albarqouni, L.; Hoffmann, T.; Glasziou, P. Evidence-based practice educational intervention studies: A systematic review of what is taught and how it is measured. BMC Med. Educ. 2018, 18, 177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Saunders, H.; Gallagher-Ford, L.; Kvist, T.; Vehviläinen-Julkunen, K. Practicing Healthcare Professionals’ Evidence-Based Practice Competencies: An Overview of Systematic Reviews. Worldviews Evid. Based Nurs. 2019, 16, 176–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Salbach, N.M.; Jaglal, S.B. Creation and validation of the evidence-based practice confidence scale for health care professionals. J. Eval. Clin. Pract. 2011, 17, 794–800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Upton, D.; Upton, P. Development of an evidence-based practice questionnaire for nurses. J. Adv. Nurs. 2006, 53, 454–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Benner, P. From Novice to Expert: Excellence and Power in Clinical Nursing Practice; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 1984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Fritsche, L.; Greenhalgh, T.; Falck-Ytter, Y.; Neumayer, H.-H.; Kunz, R. Do short courses in evidence based medicine improve knowledge and skills? Validation of Berlin questionnaire and before and after study of courses in evidence based medicine. BMJ 2002, 325, 1338–1341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Ilic, D.; Bin Nordin, R.; Glasziou, P.; Tilson, J.K.; Villanueva, E. Development and validation of the ACE tool: Assessing medical trainees’ competency in evidence based medicine. BMC Med. Educ. 2014, 14, 114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Ramos, K.D.; Schafer, S.; Tracz, S.M. Validation of the Fresno test of competence in evidence based medicine. BMJ 2003, 326, 319–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Spurlock, D., Jr.; Wonder, A.H. Validity and Reliability Evidence for a New Measure: The Evidence-Based Practice Knowledge Assessment in Nursing. J. Nurs. Educ. 2015, 54, 605–613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Taylor, R.; Reeves, B.; Mears, R.; Keast, J.; Binns, S.; Ewings, P.; Khan, K. Development and validation of a questionnaire to evaluate the effectiveness of evidence-based practice teaching. Med. Educ. 2001, 35, 544–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Kortekaas, M.F.; Bartelink, M.-L.E.; de Groot, E.; Korving, H.; de Wit, N.J.; Grobbee, D.E.; Hoes, A.W. The Utrecht questionnaire (U-CEP) measuring knowledge on clinical epidemiology proved to be valid. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2017, 82, 119–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Halm, M.A. Evaluating the Impact of EBP Education: Development of a Modified Fresno Test for Acute Care Nursing. Worldviews Evid. Based Nurs. 2018, 15, 272–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Laibhen-Parkes, N.; Kimble, L.P.; Melnyk, B.M.; Sudia, T.; Codone, S. An Adaptation of the Original Fresno Test to Measure Evidence-Based Practice Competence in Pediatric Bedside Nurses. Worldviews Evid. Based Nurs. 2018, 15, 230–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Snibsøer, A.K.; Ciliska, D.; Yost, J.; Graverholt, B.; Nortvedt, M.W.; Riise, T.; Espehaug, B. Self-reported and objectively assessed knowledge of evidence-based practice terminology among healthcare students: A cross-sectional study. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0200313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Brett, J.L. Use of nursing practice research findings. Nurs. Res. 1987, 36, 344–349. [Google Scholar]
  39. Gerrish, K.; Ashworth, P.; Lacey, A.; Bailey, J.; Cooke, J.; Kendall, S.; McNeilly, E. Factors influencing the development of evidence-based practice: A research tool. J. Adv. Nurs. 2007, 57, 328–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. 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]
  41. Ruzafa-Martinez, M.; Msc, L.L.; Madrigal-Torres, M. Attitude towards Evidence-Based Nursing Questionnaire: Development and psychometric testing in Spanish community nurses. J. Eval. Clin. Pract. 2011, 17, 664–670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. McColl, A.; Smith, H.; White, P.; Field, J. General practitioners’ perceptions of the route to evidence based medicine: A questionnaire survey. BMJ 1998, 316, 361–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Nagy, S.; Lumby, J.; McKinley, S.; Macfarlane, C. Nurses’ beliefs about the conditions that hinder or support evidence-based nursing. Int. J. Nurs. Pract. 2001, 7, 314–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Fernández-Domínguez, J.C.; de Pedro-Gómez, J.E.; Morales-Asencio, J.M.; Bennasar-Veny, M.; Sastre-Fullana, P.; Sesé-Abad, A. Health Sciences-Evidence Based Practice questionnaire (HS-EBP) for measuring transprofessional evidence-based practice: Creation, development and psychometric validation. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0177172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  45. Fernández-Domínguez, J.C.; Sesé-Abad, A.; Morales-Asencio, J.M.; Sastre-Fullana, P.; Pol-Castañeda, S.; De Pedro-Gómez, J.E. Content validity of a health science evidence-based practice questionnaire (HS-EBP) with a web-based modified Delphi approach. Int. J. Qual. Health Care 2016, 28, 764–773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Waltz, C.F.; Strickland, O.; Lenz, E.R. Measurement in Nursing and Health Research, 5th ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  47. Lin, F.-L.; Hsu, C.-C.; Mehling, W.; Yeh, M.-L. Translation and Psychometric Testing of the Chinese Version of the Multidimensional Assessment of Interoceptive Awareness. J. Nurs. Res. 2017, 25, 76–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Pallant, J. SPSS Survival Manual: A Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis Using the SPSS Program, 4th ed.; Unwin, A., Ed.; Open University Press: Maidenhead, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  49. Polit, D.F.; Beck, C.T. Nursing Research: Generating and Assessing Evidence for Nursing Practice; Wolters Kluwer: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  50. Nunnally, J.C.; Bernstein, I.H. The Assessment of Reliability. J. Psychom. Theory 1994, 3, 248–292. [Google Scholar]
  51. Koo, T.K.; Li, M.Y. A Guideline of Selecting and Reporting Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for Reliability Research. J. Chiropr. Med. 2016, 15, 155–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Eriksson, L.; Nga, N.T.; Målqvist, M.; Persson, L.; Ewald, U.; Wallin, L. Evidence-based practice in neonatal health: Knowledge among primary health care staff in northern Viet Nam. Hum. Resour. Health 2009, 7, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Nguyen, T.N.M.; Wilson, A. Hospital readiness for undertaking evidence-based practice: A survey. Nurs. Health Sci. 2016, 18, 465–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Van Giang, N.; Lin, S.; Thai, D.H. A psychometric evaluation of the Vietnamese version of the Evidence-Based Practice Attitudes and Beliefs Scales. Int. J. Nurs. Pract. 2021, 27, e12896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Ilic, D. Assessing competency in Evidence Based Practice: Strengths and limitations of current tools in practice. BMC Med. Educ. 2009, 9, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. McCluskey, A.; Bishop, B. The Adapted Fresno Test of competence in evidence-based practice. J. Contin. Educ. Health Prof. 2009, 29, 119–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Tilson, J.K. Validation of the modified Fresno Test: Assessing physical therapists’ evidence based practice knowledge and skills. BMC Med. Educ. 2010, 10, 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  58. 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] [Green Version]
  59. Lake, E.T. Development of the practice environment scale of the nursing work index. Res. Nurs. Health 2002, 25, 176–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Khammarnia, M.; Mohammadi, M.H.; Amani, Z.; Rezaeian, S.; Setoodehzadeh, F. Barriers to Implementation of Evidence Based Practice in Zahedan Teaching Hospitals, Iran, 2014. Nurs. Res. Pract. 2015, 2015, 357140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Qin, S.; Nelson, L.; McLeod, L.; Eremenco, S.; Coons, S.J. Assessing test–retest reliability of patient-reported outcome measures using intraclass correlation coefficients: Recommendations for selecting and documenting the analytical formula. Qual. Life Res. 2019, 28, 1029–1033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Ministry of Health. Bộ tiêu chí chất lượng bệnh viện Việt Nam. (6858/QĐ-BYT). Ha Noi, Vietnam. 2016. Available online: https://ecall.com.vn/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/bo-83-tieu-chi-chat-luong-benh-vien-viet-nam-nam-2016-phien-ban-2.0.pdf (accessed on 30 November 2022). (In Vietnamese)
  63. Martins, J.; Lavradio, L. Rushing to the end: Participants’ perceptions of demotivating aspects of online surveys. Análise Psicológica 2020, 38, 241–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Grimm, P. Social Desirability Bias. WILEY International Encyclopedia of Marketing. 2010. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444316568.wiem02057 (accessed on 30 November 2022).
Table
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the participants (n = 342).
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the participants (n = 342).
Variablesn%MeanSD
Age (years) 35.497.60
Hospital
 A/B63/27918.42/81.58
Working department
 Inpatient/Outpatient248/9472.51/27.49
Marital status
 Married/Single236/10669.01/30.99
Education level
 Diploma/Bachelor’s Degree173/16950.58/49.42
Position
 Staff/Administrator289/4384.50/15.49
Year of working experience 12.347.33
Job satisfaction 8.741.06
Self-assessed quality of midwifery care 8.320.97
Language barrier to scientific literature 6.842.19
Learning EBP at schooling
 No/Yes155/18745.32/54.68
Learning EBP in hospital
 No/Yes200/14258.48/41.52
Learning experience: PICO
 No/Yes153/18944.74/55.26
Learning experience: Searching
 No/Yes211/13161.70/38.30
Practice experience: Searching
 No/Yes203/13959.36/40.64
Learning experience: Appraisal
 No/Yes227/11566.37/33.63
Practice experience: Appraisal
 No/Yes274/6880.12/19.88
Written an evidence-based report
 No/Yes312/3091.23/8.77
Learning experience: Applying
 No/Yes136/20639.77/60.23
Practice experience: Applying
 No/Yes162/18047.37/52.63
Table
Table 2. Summary results of the HS-EBP-V subscales (n = 342).
Table 2. Summary results of the HS-EBP-V subscales (n = 342).
SubscalesMeanSDAlphaICC95% CI
Beliefs and attitudes89.449.470.940.660.41–0.81
Results from scientific research83.3112.440.970.580.27–0.75
Development of professional practice85.9010.960.920.640.38–70.9
Assessment of results86.1411.690.970.510.21–0.72
Barriers and facilitators84.2112.250.950.450.13–0.67
SD, standard deviation; ICC, the intraclass correlation coefficient; CI, confidence interval.
Table
Table 3. Contrasted group validity for the subscales.
Table 3. Contrasted group validity for the subscales.
SubscalesDiploma (n = 80)
Mean (SD)		Bachelor (n = 80)
Mean (SD)		t (p)
Beliefs-attitudes81.12 (8.78)95.62 (4.74)−12.99 (< 0.001)
Results from scientific research73.49 (9.40)92.63 (5.90)−15.40 (< 0.001)
Development of professional practice77.15 (9.45)92.94 (6.00)−12.61 (0.02)
Assessment of results76.46 (9.39)94.67 (4.85)−15.39 (< 0.001)
Barriers-facilitators74.38 (8.91)92.84 (5.95)−15.39 (< 0.001)
SD, standard deviation; independent t-test.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Nguyen, Q.T.; Yeh, M.-L.; Ngo, L.T.H.; Chen, C. Translating and Validating the Vietnamese Version of the Health Sciences Evidence-Based Practice Questionnaire. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 5325. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20075325

AMA Style

Nguyen QT, Yeh M-L, Ngo LTH, Chen C. Translating and Validating the Vietnamese Version of the Health Sciences Evidence-Based Practice Questionnaire. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2023; 20(7):5325. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20075325

Chicago/Turabian Style

Nguyen, Quyen Thao, Mei-Ling Yeh, Ly Thi Hai Ngo, and Chiehfeng Chen. 2023. "Translating and Validating the Vietnamese Version of the Health Sciences Evidence-Based Practice Questionnaire" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 20, no. 7: 5325. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20075325

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop