Knowledge May Not Be the Best Target for Strategies to Influence Evidence-Based Practice: Using Psychological Models to Understand RCT Effects
- 230 Downloads
Interventions to enhance the implementation of evidence-based practice have a varied success rate. This may be due to a lack of understanding of the mechanism by which interventions achieve results.
Use psychological models to further an understanding of trial effects by piggy-backing on a randomised controlled trial testing 2 interventions (Audit & Feedback and Computer-aided Learning) in relation to evidence-based third molar management.
All participants of the parent trial (64 General Dental Practitioners across Scotland), regardless of intervention group, were invited to complete a questionnaire assessing knowledge and predictive measures from Theory of Planned Behaviour and Social Cognitive Theory. The main outcome was evidence-based extracting behaviour derived from patient records.
Neither intervention significantly influenced behaviour in the parent trial. This study revealed that the interventions did enhance knowledge, but knowledge did not predict extraction behaviour. However, the interventions did not influence variables that did predict extraction behaviour (attitude, perceived behavioural control, self-efficacy). Results suggest both interventions failed because neither influenced possible mediating beliefs for the target behavior.
Using psychology models elucidated intervention effects and allowed the identification of factors associated with evidence based practice, providing the basis for improving future intervention design.
KeywordsProcess evaluation Evidence-based practice Intervention Psychology models Theory of planned behavior Dentistry
Gratefully acknowledged are Maryam Bahrami, Marilyn Laird, and participating dentists. This project was supported by Scottish Executive’s Chief Scientists Office and NHS R&D Programme (Trial R2-64).
- 1.Bero L, Grilli R, Grimshaw JM, Harvey E, Oxman AD, Thomson MA. Closing the gap between research and practice: an overview of systematic reviews of interventions to promote implementation of research findings by health care professionals. Br Med J. 1998;317:465–8.Google Scholar
- 3.Grimshaw JM, Thomas RE, Maclennan G, Matowe L, Shirran L, Wensing M, et al. Effectiveness and efficiency of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies. Int J Technol Assess Health. 2004;8(6):1–72.Google Scholar
- 4.Oxman AD, Thomson MA, Davis DA, Haynes B. No magic bullets: a systematic review of 102 trials of interventions to improve professional practice. Can Med Assoc J. 1995;153:1423–31.Google Scholar
- 5.Davies P, Walker A, Grimshaw J. Theories of behavior change in studies of guideline implementation. Proc Br Psychol Soc. 2003;11:120.Google Scholar
- 9.Bandura A. Self-efficacy—the exercise of control. New York: Freeman; 1997.Google Scholar
- 10.Bonetti D, Johnston M, Pitts N, Deery C, Ricketts I, Bahrami M, et al. Can psychological models bridge the gap between clinical guidelines and clinicians’ behaviour? A randomised controlled trial of an intervention to influence dentists’ intention to implement evidence-based practice. Br Dent J. 2003;195:602–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Conner M, Norman P. Predicting health behaviour. Buckingham: Open University Press; 1996.Google Scholar
- 15.Hardeman W, Johnston M, Johnston D, Bonetti D, Wareham N, Kinmouth A. Application of the theory of planned behaviour in behaviour change interventions: a systematic review. Psychol Health. 2002;17(2):123–58.Google Scholar
- 18.Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). Management of unerupted and impacted third molar teeth. A National Clinical Guideline, 43; 2000.Google Scholar
- 19.Conner M, Sparks P. The theory of planned behaviour and health behaviours. In: Conner M, Norman P, editors. Predicting health behaviour. Research and practice with social cognition models. Buckingham: Open University Press; 1996. p. 121–62.Google Scholar
- 20.Faul F, Erdfelder E. GPOWER: a priori, post-hoc, and compromise power analyses for MS-DOS [computer program]. Bonn, FRG: Bonn University, Department of Psychology; 1992.Google Scholar
- 21.Thomson-O’Brien MA, Oxman AD, Davis DA, Haynes RB, Freemantle N, Harvey EL. Audit and feedback to improve health professional practice and health care outcomes: part I. In: Bero L, Grilli R, Grimshaw J, Oxman A, editors. Collaboration on effective professional practice module of the Cochrane Database of systematic reviews (updated 01 December 1997). Oxford: Cochrane; 1997.Google Scholar
- 23.Medical Research Council. A framework for development and evaluation of RCTs for complex interventions to improve health. London: Medical Research Council; 2000.Google Scholar