Claims

A theory-based EBP intervention produced a small significant increase in EBP use but no significant difference in EBP future use

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2019 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q2 i? Only one study measured EBP use and future use, reporting a small but significant difference for EBP use and no significant difference for EBP future use. → Ramis Mary-Anne 2019

Evidence

Ramis Mary-Anne 2019

Ramis Mary-Anne, Chang Anne, Conway Aaron, Lim David, Munday Judy, Nissen Lisa. (2019). Theory-based strategies for teaching evidence-based practice to undergraduate health students: a systematic review. BMC Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-019-1698-4

q2 · i? · review · r3

Review reports the single study (Kim et al., quasi-experimental with control, Johnston KAB questionnaire, self-report) measuring EBP use and future use; equivalence for future use was not tested, only non-significance (p = 0.255).

"A small but significant difference between intervention and control groups was reported for EBP use (mean difference = 0.26, p = 0.015), however no significant difference between groups was reported for EBP future use (mean diff =0.13, p = 0.255)."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-01
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.