Self-perception and knowledge of evidence based medicine by physicians

Abstract

BackgroundThe influence, legitimacy and application of Evidence Based Medicine (EBM) in the world is growing as a tool that integrates, the best available evidence to decision making in patient care. Our goal was to identify the relationship between self-perception about the relevance of Evidence Based Medicine (EBM) and the degree of basic knowledge of this discipline in a group of physicians.MethodsA survey was carried out in a third level public hospital in Mexico City. Self-perception was measured by means of a structured scale, and the degree of knowledge through parameter or “rubrics” methodology.ResultsA total of 320 questionnaires were given to 55 medical students (17 %); 45 pre-graduate medical interns (14 %); 118 medical residents (37 %) and 102 appointed physicians of different specialties (32 %).Self-perception of EBM: The majority of those surveyed (n = 274, 86 %) declared that they were very or moderately familiar with EBM. The great majority (n = 270, 84 %) believe that EBM is very important in clinical practice and 197 physicians (61 %) said that they implement it always or usually. The global index of self-perception was 75 %.Knowledge of EBM: Definition of EBM; Seven of those surveyed (2 %) included 3 of the 4 characteristics of the definition, 82 (26 %) mentioned only two characteristics of the definition, 152 (48 %) mentioned only one characteristic and 79 (25 %) did not include any characteristic of EBM. Phases of the EBM process: The majority of those surveyed (n = 218, 68 %) did not include the steps that characterize the practice of EBM, of which 79 participants (25 %) mentioned elements not related to it. The global index of knowledge was 19 %.ConclusionsThe majority of the surveyed physicians have a high self-perception of the relevance of EBM. In spite of this, the majority of them did not know the characteristics that define the EBM and phases of the process for its practice. A major discrepancy was found between self-perception and the level of basic knowledge of EBM among the surveyed physicians.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12909-016-0681-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Evidence-based medicine self-assessment, knowledge, and integration into daily practice: a survey among Romanian physicians and comparison between trainees and specialists

“…Similar results were previously reported regarding the EBM self-assessment as well as the utility of evidencebased practice and the use of the EBM concept in the daily activity [5,28]. Our study also reveals disagreement between how the respondents perceived their own EBM knowledge and their actual knowledge ( Table 2, A01, A03, A04, A05).…”

“…Aguirre-Raya et al reported in 2016 the perception of EBM among medical students, interns, and specialists and reported a high global index of self-perception (75%), but this proved not to be supported by the global index on knowledge (19%) [5]. The gap between the attitude towards EBM and knowledge and awareness has been reported among physicians from different parts of the world (e.g., Saudi Arabia [6], United Arab Emirates [7], Ethiopia [8], Egypt [9], Japan [10], Belgium [11], Norway [12], France [13], or India [14]).…”

Knowledge, attitudes and practice of physicians toward evidence‐based medicine: A systematic review

“…This is while self‐reported (perceived) knowledge has been shown to be significantly different from actual knowledge. This fact may reflect that the results of the studies in this systematic review may be an overestimation of the actual knowledge level of physicians …”

Epistemic lenses and virtues, beyond evidence‐based medicine

“…A major discrepancy between physician's self‐perception and the level of basic knowledge of EBM is persistently shown, with doctors overestimating benefits, underacknowledging harms and poorly communicating this to patients (Aguirre‐Raya et al., ; Krouss, Croft & Morgan, ). In terms of ‘treatment’, absolute risk reductions are not systematically demanded by editors or provided in national formularies and guidelines.…”