Background: Previous research has focused mainly on Evidence-based Practice (EBP) within specific professions. Primary care depends upon good information flow across professional and structural boundaries to best care for the patients. The mapping of the pan-professional experiences and attitudes regarding EBP in publicly funded clinical practice is necessary to reach an understanding of EBP and its context of implementation. Thus, this study aimed to investigate healthcare professionals’ experiences and attitudes toward working according to EBP in primary care.
Methods: The study used a convergent mixed methods design divided into two strands: First consisting of a quantitative enquiry tool (Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale, EBPAS). The second is a set of qualitative interviews analysed using qualitative content analysis. Both strands included all employees with patient interaction in the studied county (n=625). Population included amongst others, doctors, nurses, physiotherapists, psychologists, and assistant nurses. Out of the original 625 health professionals included, 191 finished the first strand and 8 volunteered for the second strand (2 nurses, 2 physiotherapists, 1 psychiatrist and 3 doctors).
Results: The EBPAS value of 2.8 (max 4) indicated a generally positive attitude towards EBP amongst the population. This attitude could be seen also in interviews, with the addition of experiences of not having the ability or resources to engage in EBP. This was illustrated by the result from the qualitative content analysis resulting theme: “Dilemma of the split between theory and reality”.
Conclusions: Although the general attitude towards EBP is good, experiences of practising it differ. There is a need to increase knowledge of concepts, requirements, and execution of EBP. There were few or non-existent incentives towards educational or research development on an individual level due to the organizational and managerial focus on production rather than quality of care. The absence of opportunities to do research and collegial debate about new ways of finding and implementing research-based evidence results might influence the quality of care.