Web-based evidence based practice educational intervention to improve EBP competence among BSN-prepared pediatric bedside nurses: a mixed methods pilot study

Abstract

The purpose of this pilot study was to assess and refine a Web-based EBP educational intervention focused on improving EBP competence in BSN-prepared pediatric bedside nurses, and to examine its feasibility, acceptability, and usability. Using a two-group experimental embedded mixed methods design, a convenience sample of 29 BSN-prepared nurses was recruited from a pediatric hospital in the Southeastern United States. Participants were randomized into an intervention (n=14) or attention control group (n=15) and both received approximately 2 hours of educational content. The intervention group (IG) reviewed the Web-based EBP module and the attention control group (ACG) reviewed a Webbased module on Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy. Quantitative data were collected online from both groups using the Evidence-Based Practice Beliefs (EBPB) scale and the adapted Fresno test for Pediatric Nurses. Qualitative data were collected via telephone interview. Data were collected online utilizing SurveyMonkey © technology. Quantitative analyses were conducted using parametric and non-parametric statistics, and effect size calculations. Qualitative data were analyzed using methods described by Creswell and Plano Clark (2011). Demographic characteristics of the two groups were similar. A comparison of the IG and ACG post-intervention indicated there was not a statistically significant difference in the groups on EBP competence. However, the mean of the IG was higher and the effect size estimate of Hedges' g was small to borderline medium in magnitude. EBPB scale scores post-intervention were statistically significantly different with the IG demonstrating statistically significantly more positive beliefs about EBP. The estimated effect size for this difference was borderline medium in magnitude. Participants' interview data supported the intervention as being moderately feasible, acceptable, and usable for improving EBP competence in BSN-prepared pediatric nurses. This study provides preliminary data on Web-based methodologies that can be helpful in improving EBP beliefs and EBP competence among pediatric bedside nurses.

E‐learning of evidence‐based health care (EBHC) to increase EBHC competencies in healthcare professionals: a systematic review

“…Comparisons included no EBHC learning, face‐to‐face learning of EBHC and e‐learning of EBHC. Three studies compared pure e‐learning to no learning (Laibhen‐Parkes, 2014; Schilling et al, 2006; Welch, Van Lunen, & Hankemeier, 2014), while five studies compared blended learning to no learning (Bergold et al, 2013; Dizon et al, 2014; Forsetlund et al, 2003; Kok et al, 2013; Ramos‐Morcillo et al, 2015). Seven studies compared pure e‐learning to face‐to‐face learning (Bradley et al, 2005; Davis et al, 2007; Davis et al, 2008; Hadley et al, 2010; Horiuchi et al, 2009; Kamin et al, 2001; McLeod et al, 2010) and five studies compared blended learning to face‐to‐face learning (Brettle & Raynor, 2013; Ilic et al, 2013; Ilic et al, 2015; Kulier et al, 2009; Saunders et al, 2016).…”

“…The most commonly used tools were the Berlin questionnaire and the Fresno test. Four studies used a questionnaire based on both the Fresno test and the Berlin questionnaire (Davis et al, 2007; Davis et al, 2008; Kulier et al, 2009; Kulier et al, 2012), four studies used an adapted version of the Fresno test (Bergold et al, 2013; Dizon et al, 2014; Kok et al, 2013; Laibhen‐Parkes, 2014), and two studies made use of the Berlin questionnaire or adaptations there of (Ilic et al, 2013; Ilic et al, 2015). Both these studies made use of additional assessments to measure EBHC knowledge, (Ilic et al, 2013) made use of two assignment tasks, while (Ilic et al, 2015) used the validated ACE tool.…”

“…One non‐randomised trial (Schilling et al, 2006) and two RCTs (Laibhen‐Parkes, 2014; Welch et al, 2014) compared pure e‐learning to no learning (Table 12.1). Overall, results favoured pure e‐learning interventions.…”

“…Thirteen included studies were individually randomised controlled trials (Bergold et al, 2013; Bradley et al, 2005; Brettle & Raynor, 2013; Brouwers et al, 2011; Davis et al, 2007; Davis et al, 2008; Dizon et al, 2014; Forsetlund et al, 2003; Horiuchi et al, 2009; Kamin et al, 2001; Macrae et al, 2004; Saunders et al, 2016; Welch, Van Lunen, & Hankemeier, 2014), seven studies were cluster RCTs (Hadley et al, 2010; Ilic et al, 2015; Kok et al, 2013; Kulier et al, 2009; Kulier et al, 2012; Laibhen‐Parkes, 2014; McLeod et al, 2010) and four were quasi‐randomised trials (Fernandez et al, 2014; Ilic et al, 2013; Ramos‐Morcillo et al, 2015; Schilling et al, 2006). We did not identify any eligible CBAs or ITS.…”

“…Of these, five trials included undergraduate students (Bradley et al, 2005; Davis et al, 2008; Ilic et al, 2013; Ilic et al, 2015; Schilling et al, 2006), six trials included qualified clinicians (Bergold et al, 2013; Davis et al, 2007; Forsetlund et al, 2003; Hadley et al, 2010; Kok et al, 2013; Macrae et al, 2004), and three trials included residents; that is, postgraduate students with a basic medical degree who are specialising (Kulier et al, 2009; Kulier et al, 2012; McLeod et al, 2010). Sixtrials included nurses (Brettle & Raynor, 2013; Fernandez et al, 2014; Horiuchi et al, 2009; Laibhen‐Parkes, 2014; Ramos‐Morcillo et al, 2015; Saunders et al, 2016), of which one study included undergraduate (Brettle & Raynor, 2013) and one postgraduate (Fernandez et al, 2014) students; and four trials included practicing nurses. The remaining four trials included practicing physiotherapists (Dizon et al, 2014), undergraduate physician assistants (Kamin et al, 2001), athletic trainers (Welch, Van Lunen, & Hankemeier, 2014) and a combination of healthcare professionals, clinicians, methodologists, policy makers and trainees (Brouwers et al, 2011).…”