Research for Evidence Based Practice

Online animation resources

The evidence based practice process

This animation reveals the steps for evidence based practice to ensure better outcomes for patients. This file was edited to remove a legacy hyperlink. The link may be best placed in the efolio text for easy editing by academics.

Methodology for evidence-based practice

Protocol writing Methodology for evidence-based practice

protocol writing Methodology for evidence-based practice

protocol writing Methodology for evidence-based practice

Methodology for evidence-based practice

Methodology for evidence-based practice

Methodology for evidence-based practice smaller

Protocol writing Methodology for evidence-based practice smaller player

Proton flux induced by free fatty acids across phospholipid bilayers: New evidences based on short-circuit measurements in planar lipid membranes

Free fatty acids (FFA) are important mediators of proton transport across membranes. However, information concerning the influence of the Structural features of both FFA and the membrane environment on the proton translocation mechanisms across phospholipid membranes is relatively scant. The effects of FFA chain length, unsaturation and membrane composition on proton transport have been addressed in this study by means of electrical measurements in planar lipid bilayers. Proton conductance (G(H)(+)) was calculated from open-circuit voltage and short-circuit current density measurements. We found that cis-unsaturated FFA caused a more pronounced effect on proton transport as compared to Saturated and trans-unsaturated FFA. Cholesterol and cardiolipin decreased membrane leak conductance. Cardiolipin also decreased proton conductance. These effects indicate a dual modulation of protein-independent proton transport by FFA: through a flip-flop mechanism and by modifying a proton diffusional pathway. Moreover the membrane phospholipid composition was shown to importantly affect both processes. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Factors associated with evidence-based practice among registered nurses in Sweden : a national cross-sectional study

Background: Evidence-based practice (EBP) is emphasized to increase the quality of care and patient safety. EBP is often described as a process consisting of distinct activities including, formulating questions, searching for information, compiling the appraised information, implementing evidence, and evaluating the resulting practice. To increase registered nurses' (RNs') practice of EBP, variables associated with such activities need to be explored. The aim of the study was to examine individual and organizational factors associated with EBP activities among RNs 2 years post graduation. Methods: A cross-sectional design based on a national sample of RNs was used. Data were collected in 2007 from a cohort of RNs, included in the Swedish Longitudinal Analyses of Nursing Education/Employment study. The sample consisted of 1256 RNs (response rate 76%). Of these 987 RNs worked in healthcare at the time of the data collection. Data was self-reported and collected through annual postal surveys. EBP activities were measured using six single items along with instruments measuring individual and work-related variables. Data were analyzed using logistic regression models. Results: Associated factors were identified for all six EBP activities. Capability beliefs regarding EBP was a significant factor for all six activities (OR = 2.6 - 7.3). Working in the care of older people was associated with a high extent of practicing four activities (OR = 1.7 - 2.2). Supportive leadership and high collective efficacy were associated with practicing three activities (OR = 1.4 - 2.0). Conclusions: To be successful in enhancing EBP among newly graduated RNs, strategies need to incorporate both individually and organizationally directed factors.

Beyond the Pro and Contra of Evidence-Based Practice: Reflections on a Recurring Dilemma at the Core of Social Work

Currently, social work is witnessing a quite polarized debate about what should be the basis for good practice. Simply stated, the different attempts to define the required basis for effective and accountable interventions in social work practice can be grouped in two paradigmatic positions, which seem to be in strong opposition to each other. On the one hand the highly influential evidence based practice movement highlights the necessity to base practice interventions on proven effectiveness from empirical research. Despite some variations, such as between narrow conceptions of evidence based practice (see e.g. McNeece/Thyer, 2004) and broader approaches to it (see e.g. Gambrill, 1999, 2001, 2008), the evidence based practice movement embodies a positivist orientation and more explicitly scientific aspirations of social work by using positivistic empirical strategies. Critics of the evidence based practice movement argue that its narrow epistemological assumptions are not appropriate for the understanding of social phenomena and that evidence based guidelines to practice are insufficient to deal with the extremely complex activities social work practice requires in different and always somewhat unique practice situations (Webb, 2001; Gray & Mc Donald, 2006; Otto, Polutta &Ziegler, 2009). Furthermore critics of evidence based practice argue that it privileges an uncritical and a-political positivism which seems highly problematic in the current climate of welfare state reforms, in which the question ‘what works’ is highly politicized and the legitimacy of professional social work practice is being challenged maybe more than ever before (Kessl, 2009). Both opponents and proponents of evidence based practice argue on the epistemological, the methodological and the ethical level to sustain their point of view and raise fundamental questions about the real nature of social work practice, so that one could get the impression that social work is really at the crossroads between two very different conceptions of social work practice and its further professional development (Stepney, 2009). However, this article is not going to merely rehearse the pro and contra of different positions that are being invoked in the debate about evidence based practice. Instead it aims to go further by identifying the dilemmas underlying these positions which - so it is argued – re-emerge in the debate about evidence based practice, but which are older than this debate. They concern the fundamental ambivalence modern professionalization processes in social work were subjected to from their very beginnings.