BackgroundTeaching the steps of evidence-based practice (EBP) has become standard curriculum for health professions at both student and professional levels. Determining the best methods for evaluating EBP learning is hampered by a dearth of valid and practical assessment tools and by the absence of guidelines for classifying the purpose of those that exist. Conceived and developed by delegates of the Fifth International Conference of Evidence-Based Health Care Teachers and Developers, the aim of this statement is to provide guidance for purposeful classification and development of tools to assess EBP learning.DiscussionThis paper identifies key principles for designing EBP learning assessment tools, recommends a common taxonomy for new and existing tools, and presents the Classification Rubric for EBP Assessment Tools in Education (CREATE) framework for classifying such tools. Recommendations are provided for developers of EBP learning assessments and priorities are suggested for the types of assessments that are needed. Examples place existing EBP assessments into the CREATE framework to demonstrate how a common taxonomy might facilitate purposeful development and use of EBP learning assessment tools.SummaryThe widespread adoption of EBP into professional education requires valid and reliable measures of learning. Limited tools exist with established psychometrics. This international consensus statement strives to provide direction for developers of new EBP learning assessment tools and a framework for classifying the purposes of such tools.

BackgroundGPs report various barriers to the use and practice of evidence-based medicine (EBM). A review of research on these barriers may help solve problems regarding the uptake of evidence in clinical outpatient practice. AimTo determine the barriers encountered by GPs in the practice of EBM and to come up with solutions to the barriers identified. DesignA systematic review of the literature. MethodThe following databases were searched: MEDLINE ® (PubMed ® ), Embase, CINAHL ® , ERIC, and the Cochrane Library, until February 2011. Primary studies (all methods, all languages) that explore the barriers that GPs encounter in the practice of EBM were included. ResultsA total of 14 700 articles were identified, of which 22 fulfilled all inclusion criteria. Of the latter, nine concerned qualitative, 12 concerned quantitative, and one concerned both qualitative and quantitative research methods. The barriers described in the articles cover the categories: evidence (including the accompanying EBM steps), the GP's preferences (experience, expertise, education), and the patient's preferences. The particular GP setting also has important barriers to the use of EBM. Barriers found in this review, among others, include lack of time, EBM skills, and available evidence; patient-related factors; and the attitude of the GP. ConclusionVarious barriers are encountered when using EBM in GP practice. Interventions that help GPs to overcome these barriers are needed, both within EBM education and in clinical practice. Keywordsdecision-making; evidence-based medicine; general practitioners; review.e511 British Journal of General Practice, July 2012 language in which an article is written was not an exclusion criterion. If needed, relevant parts of the paper were translated. In cases where more information was needed to ascertain inclusion or exclusion, the authors of the study were contacted. The search strategy was based on the search terms from an earlier systematic review of barriers faced by resident doctors. It was developed by a clinical librarian and adapted for GPs (Box 1). 8 Information sources Study selectionBefore reviewing, the researchers discussed the inclusion and exclusion criteria in order to improve inter-rater reliability. Two reviewers independently appraised the titles of the studies retrieved from the literature search, to assess which studies were clearly irrelevant to the present study. Studies were excluded only if both reviewers considered a title unsuitable for inclusion. The same two reviewers independently appraised the abstracts of the studies that had not been excluded. These studies were excluded if both reviewers thought it appropriate to do so. If only one reviewer thought the study should be included, a decision was made through discussion with a third reviewer.Two reviewers independently appraised the complete texts of the studies that had been included, based on their abstracts. If only one of the reviewers thought that the study should be included, a third reviewer determined whether ...

Valid and reliable EBP behaviour assessment tools are available. However, only one questionnaire validly assessed all five EBP steps, covering the entire concept of EBP.

Less stress incontinence after vaginal prolapse repair with sling, but more adverse events.