Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Scopus Web of Science® Altmetric
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorLizarondo, L.en
dc.contributor.authorGrimmer-Somers, K.en
dc.contributor.authorKumar, S.en
dc.contributor.authorCrockett, A.en
dc.identifier.citationBMC Research Notes, 2012; 5(1):588-1-588-9en
dc.description.abstractBackground: Although allied health is considered to be one 'unit' of healthcare providers, it comprises a range of disciplines which have different training and ways of thinking, and different tasks and methods of patient care. Very few empirical studies on evidence-based practice (EBP) have directly compared allied health professionals. The objective of this study was to examine the impact of a structured model of journal club (JC), known as iCAHE (International Centre for Allied Health Evidence) JC, on the EBP knowledge, skills and behaviour of the different allied health disciplines. Methods: A pilot, pre-post study design using maximum variation sampling was undertaken. Recruitment was conducted in groups and practitioners such as physiotherapists, occupational therapists, speech pathologists, social workers, psychologists, nutritionists/dieticians and podiatrists were invited to participate. All participating groups received the iCAHE JC for six months. Quantitative data using the Adapted Fresno Test (McCluskey & Bishop) and Evidence-based Practice Questionnaire (Upton & Upton) were collected prior to the implementation of the JC, with follow-up measurements six months later. Mean percentage change and confidence intervals were calculated to compare baseline and post JC scores for all outcome measures. Results: The results of this study demonstrate variability in EBP outcomes across disciplines after receiving the iCAHE JC. Only physiotherapists showed statistically significant improvements in all outcomes; speech pathologists and occupational therapists demonstrated a statistically significant increase in knowledge but not for attitude and evidence uptake; social workers and dieticians/nutritionists showed statistically significant positive changes in their knowledge, and evidence uptake but not for attitude. Conclusions: There is evidence to suggest that a JC such as the iCAHE model is an effective method for improving the EBP knowledge and skills of allied health practitioners. It may be used as a single intervention to facilitate evidence uptake in some allied health disciplines but may need to be integrated with other strategies to influence practice behaviour in other practitioners. An in-depth analysis of other factors (e.g. individual, contextual, organisational), or the relative contribution of these variables is required to better understand the determinants of evidence uptake in allied health.en
dc.description.statementofresponsibilityLucylynn M Lizarondo, Karen Grimmer-Somers, Saravana Kumar and Alan Crocketten
dc.publisherBioMed Centralen
dc.rights© 2012 Lizarondo et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.en
dc.subjectJournal club; Evidence-based practice; Allied health; Evidence uptakeen
dc.titleDoes journal club membership improve research evidence uptake in different allied health disciplines: a pre-post studyen
dc.typeJournal articleen
pubs.library.collectionTranslational Health Science publicationsen
Appears in Collections:Translational Health Science publications

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
hdl_92177.pdfPublished version678.64 kBAdobe PDFView/Open

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.