ABSTRACT
Background Evidence-based practice (EBP) promotes shared decision-making between clinicians and patients and has been widely adopted by various health professions including nutrition & dietetics, medicine and nursing.
Objective To determine evidence-based practice (EBP) competencies among nutrition professionals and students reported in the literature.
Design Systematic review.
Data sources Medline, Embase, CINAHL, ERIC, CENTRAL, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, BIOSIS Citation Index, and ClinicalTrials.gov up to March 2023.
Eligibility criteria for study selection Eligible primary studies had to objectively or subjectively document the assessment of at least one of six predefined core EBP competencies, including formulating structured clinical questions, searching the literature for best evidence, and assessing studies for methodological quality, magnitude (size) of effects, certainty of evidence for effects, and determining the clinical applicability of study results based on patient values and preferences.
Data extraction and synthesis Two reviewers independently screened articles and extracted data, including the reporting quality for eligible studies. Results were not amenable to meta-analysis and were thus summarized for each EBP competency.
Results We identified 12 eligible cross-sectional survey studies, comprised of 1065 participants, primarily registered dietitians, across six countries, with the majority assessed in the United States (n=470). The reporting quality of the survey studies was poor overall, with 43% of items not reported and 22% of items partially reported. Only one study (8%) explicitly used an objective questionnaire to assess EBP competencies. The proportion of studies reporting on each competency were: 17% on the formulation of clinical questions, 83% on searching the literature, 75% on methodological quality or critical appraisal, 58% on interpreting statistical results, and 75% on applying study results. In general, the six competencies were incompletely defined or reported (e.g., it was unclear what ‘applicability’ and ‘critical appraisal’ referred to, and what study designs were appraised by the participants). Two core competencies, the magnitude (size) of effects and the certainty of evidence for effects, were not assessed.
Conclusions Among 12 included articles the overall quality of study reports was poor, and when EBP competencies were reported they were predominantly self-perceived assessments as opposed to objective assessments. No studies reported on competencies in assessing magnitude of effect or certainty of evidence, skills that are essential for optimizing clinical nutrition decision-making.
Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42022311916.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Protocols
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022311916
Funding Statement
This research was not funded by a specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. It was funded, in small part, by the Presidential Transformational Teaching Grant from Texas A&M University (awarded to BCJ). The university had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report. The corresponding author had full access to all the data in the study and had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.
