Date Presented 3/31/2017
Low research use by occupational therapists may influence the quality of their services. Occupational therapists were surveyed to explore their use of evidence sources and potential contributions of online competence assessment to the use of research evidence in clinical decision making.
Primary Author and Speaker: Christine Myers
PURPOSE: Research use (RU) in clinical decision making is considered a component of evidence-based practice needed for increasing quality and reducing costs in health care. However, RU by occupational therapists is low. The Navigator online competence assessment platform from the National Board for Certification in Occupational Therapy (NBCOT) addresses RU by providing assessments of evidence-based practice knowledge and skills (e.g., quizzes, case simulations) and individually tailored lists of peer-reviewed publications with links to the full texts in ProQuest, a research database available free to users.
The Navigator offers tools for RU, yet how occupational therapists use the provided research evidence sources and how they perceive their use of the sources in clinical practice are unknown. The purpose of this study was to describe occupational therapists’ perceptions of and use of evidence sources, including those provided within the Navigator. The following research questions guided the study: How do occupational therapists obtain and use sources of evidence? What are occupational therapists’ perceptions of the research evidence sources provided by the Navigator?
DESIGN: The study used a retrospective cohort design with survey methodology. Ten percent of the therapists certifying or recertifying with NBCOT in March 2016 were randomly selected to receive a recruitment email. A link to the online questionnaire and informed consent was then emailed to 511 occupational therapists who indicated they were interested in more information.
METHOD: The questionnaire was developed through a review of the literature on continuing competence and evidence-based practice and included questions on RU that were adapted with permission. After expert review, piloting, and minor revisions, the final version was presented online. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.
RESULTS: The response rate was 88.6%. Participants used workshops and colleagues as sources of evidence most often, with research articles least often. Most participants reported using the Internet to search for evidence sources. Less than a quarter of respondents identified that they had access to a research database at their workplace or another setting, but of those who had access, the majority used the database often. Slightly over a third of participants reported using the ProQuest database provided through NBCOT. The most common uses were literature searching and obtaining research articles to support clinical practice. Of participants who read the research evidence sources provided by the Navigator, the majority indicated the sources were useful and they were likely to apply what they learned to practice.
CONCLUSION: Findings correspond with research describing low RU among occupational therapists and the use of workshops and colleagues as sources of evidence more often than research. While the Internet was a common tool for finding evidence, participants’ use of online research databases was limited. Those who obtained evidence sources from the Navigator perceived the sources to be useful and applicable, supporting a need for future research on competence assessment as a means of integrating RU into practice.
IMPACT STATEMENT: Using research evidence in clinical decision making has implications for health care quality and cost; thus, increasing occupational therapists’ RU is important. This study is the first to describe the RU behaviors of occupational therapists in association with an online competence assessment.
