A systematic review of the individual determinants of research evidence use in allied health

Figures & data

Figure 1 Flowchart of article selection process.

Table 1 Summary of methodological quality score

Author/year	Sampling										Measurement				Statistical analysis				Overall rating
	1	2a	2b	2c	3	4	5a	5b	5c	6	1a	1b	2a	2b	1	2	3	4
Brown et al^Citation19	0	0	1	0	0	1	n/a	n/a	0	1	0	0	1	1	1	0	0	0	6/14 (0.43)	Weak
Salbach et al^Citation16	1	0	1	0	0	1	n/a	n/a	0	1	0	0	1	1	1	1	1	0	9/14 (0.64)	Mod-weak
Bridges et al^Citation17	1	2	0	0	1	1	n/a	n/a	0	1	0	0	0	1	1	1	0	0	9/14 (0.64)	Mod-weak
Nelson and Steele^Citation20	0	2	0	0	0	1	n/a	n/a	0	1	0	0	0	0	1	1	0	0	6/14 (0.43)	Weak
Byham-Gray et al^Citation21	1	0	1	0	1	1	n/a	n/a	0	1	0	0	1	1	1	1	0	0	9/14 (0.64)	Mod-weak
Grimmer-Somers et al^Citation18	1	2	0	0	1	1	n/a	n/a	0	1	0	0	0	0	1	1	1	0	9/14 (0.64)	Mod-weak

Notes: [Sampling] 1: probability sampling used; 2: individuals selected representative of the target population; 3: sample size justified; 4: Sample drawn from more than one site; 5: Matching groups; 6: Response rate > 50%. [Measurement] 1: Dependent variable (self-reported OR directly measured); 2: Dependent variable reliably and validly measured. [Statistical analysis] 1: Statistical test appropriate; 2: P-values reported; 3: Confidence Intervals reported; 4: Missing data managed.

Table 2 Summary of predictor variables examined and outcome measures

Author	Setting	Participant characteristics	Individual determinants or predictors examined (independent variable)	Research evidence use measures (dependent variable)
Brown et al^Citation19	Australia, UK and Taiwan	Occupational therapists (OT) in either Australia, UK or Taiwan, working primarily with children and/or adolescents aged birth to 18 years	Demographic (Age) Education (OT qualification) Attitude (KAP survey score, showing attitude towards establishing best practice) Professional characteristics (time in profession)	EROS (Edmonton Research Orientation Survey) subscales and total score (5 dependent variables) Valuing research Research involvement Being at the leading edge Evidence-based practice (EBP) Total score
Salbach et al^Citation16	Canada	Physical Therapists in clinical practice who provided services to adults with stroke	Demographics (age, gender) Education (degree earned) Attitudes (perceived usefulness of research) Involvement in research or EBP-related activities (Education about EBP) Professional characteristics (work experience; membership in professional organisation)	Information-seeking behaviour Frequency of searching online bibliographic databases Frequency of reading the research literature
Bridges et al^Citation17	USA (Georgia)	Physical therapists licensed to practice in Georgia	Demographics (age) Education (highest degree held) Beliefs and attitude (practicality, non-conformity) Professional characteristics (years licensed as PT; percentage of time spent in direct patient care)	Propensity to adopt EBP Evidence versus experience scale
Nelson and Steele^Citation20	USA (Kansas)	Master’s or doctoral level mental health practitioners (psychologists or social workers) spending at least 25% of professional time in clinical practice	Education (master’s or doctoral degree) Attitudes (practitioner’s attitudes using ‘Positive attitudes toward treatment research scale’ and ‘Negative attitudes toward treatment research scale’) Involvement in research or EBP-related activities (Participation in EBP class) Professional characteristics (years of clinical experience) Clinical setting (private practice, hospital setting, community health, centre, school, university clinic, others)	Self-reported use of evidence-based practice Measured by means of self-reported response to the question: “How often do you use evidence-based practice in your clinical work?”
Byham-Gray et al^Citation21	USA	Registered dietitians who belonged to one of the dietetic practice groups of American Dietetic Association	Demographics (age and gender) Education (educational level) Involvement in research/EBP-related activities (continuing education or training specific to computer technology, and research) Professional characteristics (employment status, years of work experience, membership in a professional association) Employment setting (type of institution and job classification) Information seeking (frequency of professional reading, last time read research)	Perceptions, attitudes, knowledge of evidence-based practice PAK score (perceptions, attitudes, knowledge)
Grimmer-Somers et al^Citation18	Australia	Registered physiotherapists in South Australia	Education (Bachelor Degree or equivalent, honours degree or postgraduate diploma, master’s degree or PhD) Attitude (Attitude to undertaking further research) Involvement in research (experience of undertaking research) Professional characteristics (years of practice; amount of time spent in patient care) Work environment (private practice/consultancy/locum, private/public hospital, government department/university, aged care facility/physical development/disability/other)	Perceived importance of research Australian-relevant version of National Health Service survey instrument

Table 3 Summary of findings

Author	Individual determinants (predictor variables)
	Sociodemographic	Education	Beliefs and attitude	Involvement in research or EBP-related activities	Professional characteristics/experiences	Clinical setting or type of work environment	Information seeking
Brown et al (OT)^Citation19	√	Level of education B = 0.10 SE B = 0.03 β = 0.14 P = 0.00	Attitude towards establishing best practice B = 0.18 SE B = 0.09 β = 0.15 P = 0.04		√
Salbach et al (PT)^Citation16	Odds ratio (95% confidence interval) Male 3.3 (1.4–8.0)^α	√	Odds ratio (95% confidence interval) Perceived usefulness of research 4.0 (2.0–7.9)α 3.2 (1.5–6.7)α*	Odds ratio (95% confidence interval) EBP education 2.7 (1.5–4.9)α 2.4 (1.1–5.5)α*	Odds ratio (95% Confidence interval) Professional association membership 3.5 (1.7–7.3)α*
Bridges et al (PT)^Citation17	Age r = −0.07 r^2 = 0.01 P = 0.026	Level of education r* = 0.29 P = 0.001	Practicality r = 0.27 r^2 = 0.07 P = 0.001 Nonconformity r = 0.24 r^2 = 0.06 P = 0.001		Years licensed as a PT r = −0.10 r^2 = 0.01 P = 0.002 % of time in direct patient care r = −0.07 r^2 = 0.01 P = 0.025
Nelson and Steele (Mental health)^Citation20		√	Positive about research B = 0.07 SE B = 0.02 β = 0.28 P = <0.001	EBP class B = 0.36 SE B = 0.10 β = 0.21 P = <0.001	√	Clinical setting B = −0.21 SE B = 0.11 β = −0.11 P = <0.001
Byham-Gray et al (Diet)^Citation21	√	Level of education r = 0.28 P = <0.001		Taken a research course r = 0.28 P = <0.001	Professional association membership r = 0.18 P = < 0.01 Work status r = 0.26 P = <0.001	Employment setting r = −0.15 P = <0.05	Frequency of professional reading r = 0.35 P = <0.001 Last time read research r = 0.41 P = <0.001
Grimmer-Somers et al (PT)^Citation18		Odds ratio (95% confidence interval) Master’s degree/PhD 2.4 (1.0–5.7)	Odds ratio (95% confidence interval) Positive about research 2.3 (3.5–42.4)	Odds ratio (95% confidence interval) Experience of research 2.6 (1.2–5.6)	√	Odds ratio (95% confidence interval) Working in hospital 3.9 (1.4–10.5)

Abbreviations: B, unstandardized regression coefficients; SE B, unstandardized regression coefficients standard error; α, Ratio of the odds of searching ≥ 2 times compared with searching ≤ 1 time in a typical month; α*, Ratio of the odds of reading ≥ 2 times compared with reading ≤ 1 time in a typical month; β, standard regression coefficients; r, Pearson’s correlation; r*, Spearman correlation; √, Predictor variable examined by the study but no significant correlation was found.

Figure 2 Summary of synthesized evidence on predictor variables.

BrownTTsengMHCaseyJMcDonaldRLyonsCPredictors of research utilization among paediatric occupational therapistsOTJR Occup Part Heal2010304172183

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

SalbachSMGuilcherSJTJaglalSBDavisDAFactors influencing information seeking by physical therapists providing stroke managementPhys Ther200989101039105019661160

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

BridgesPHBieremaLLValentineTThe propensity to adopt evidence-based practice among physical therapistsBMC Health Serv Res2007710317615076

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

NelsonTDSteeleRGPredictors of practitioners self–reported use of evidence-based practices: practitioners training, clinical setting and attitudes towards researchAdm Policy Ment Health200734431933017268858

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Byham-GrayLDGillbrideJADixonBKing StageFEvidence-based practice: what are dieticians’ perceptions, attitudes and knowledgeJ Am Diet Assoc2005105101574158116183358

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Grimmer-SomersKLekkasPNylandLYoungAKumarSPerspectives on research evidence and clinical practice: a survey of Australian physiotherapistsPhysiother Res Int200712314716117624895

 PubMedGoogle Scholar