Norwegian physicians' knowledge of and opinions about evidence-based medicine: cross-sectional study
To answer five research questions: Do Norwegian physicians know about the three important aspects of EBM? Do they use EBM methods in their clinical practice? What are their attitudes towards EBM? Has EBM in their opinion changed medical practice during the last 10 years? Do they use EBM based inform...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2009-11, Vol.4 (11), p.e7828-e7828 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | e7828 |
---|---|
container_issue | 11 |
container_start_page | e7828 |
container_title | PloS one |
container_volume | 4 |
creator | Ulvenes, Lidziya Vanahel Aasland, Olaf Nylenna, Magne Kristiansen, Ivar Sønbø |
description | To answer five research questions: Do Norwegian physicians know about the three important aspects of EBM? Do they use EBM methods in their clinical practice? What are their attitudes towards EBM? Has EBM in their opinion changed medical practice during the last 10 years? Do they use EBM based information sources?
Cross sectional survey in 2006.
Norway.
966 doctors who responded to a questionnaire (70% response rate).
In total 87% of the physicians mentioned the use of randomised clinical trials as a key aspect of EBM, while 53% of them mentioned use of clinical expertise and only 19% patients' values. 40% of the respondents reported that their practice had always been evidence-based. Many respondents experienced difficulties in using EBM principles in their clinical practice because of lack of time and difficulties in searching EBM based literature. 80% agreed that EBM helps physicians towards better practice and 52% that it improves patients' health. As reasons for changes in medical practice 86% of respondents mentioned medical progress, but only 39% EBM.
The results of the study indicate that Norwegian physicians have a limited knowledge of the key aspects of EBM but a positive attitude towards the concept. They had limited experience in the practice of EBM and were rather indifferent to the impact of EBM on medical practice. For solving a patient problem, physicians would rather consult a colleague than searching evidence based resources such as the Cochrane Library. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0007828 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_1292254279</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A472804136</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_62c93b1b624b45e6a27a0be484a98440</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A472804136</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c687t-9055ffa58af60b982c8febbed2883d7a2b6a6bedf8b22dfdcaf5d99c3bd7930f3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNk1tv0zAUgCMEYqPwDxBEQmLiocWxE8fhAWmauFSamMTt1Tq2j1uP1O7iZKP_HpdmrEU8ID_YPv7O1edk2dOCzApWF68vw9B5aGfr4HFGCKkFFfey46JhdMopYff3zkfZoxgvCamY4PxhdlQ0TVHVRBxn5lPobnDhwOfr5SY6nU7xJP_hw02LZoF5sDl4k4e18y74mIMKQ5_jtTPoNU4VRDT5Ck3S9Pgm112IcRpR94mGNo_9YDaPswcW2ohPxn2SfXv_7uvZx-n5xYf52en5VHNR99OGVJW1UAmwnKhGUC0sKoWGCsFMDVRx4OlqhaLUWKPBVqZpNFOmbhixbJI939ldtyHKsUBRFrShtCppgibZfEeYAJdy3bkVdBsZwMnfgtAtJHS90y1KTnXDVKE4LVVZIQdaA1FYihIaUZYk2Xo7ehtUKoBG33fQHhg9fPFuKRfhWtK6ZiWld-HqzsXeeelDB7IgoqKyrDnniTgZXXThasDYy5WLGtsWPIYhypqxRghRbBN78Rf57_RnO2oBKUPnbUiB6bQMrpxOjWRdkp-WNRWkLNg2gFcHConp8We_gCFGOf_y-f_Zi--H7Ms9donQ9ssY2mHbNfEQLG9rlBqrQ_unvgWR2zm4zVNu50COc5DUnu3_zZ3S2PjsF9JQBIU</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1292254279</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Norwegian physicians' knowledge of and opinions about evidence-based medicine: cross-sectional study</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Ulvenes, Lidziya Vanahel ; Aasland, Olaf ; Nylenna, Magne ; Kristiansen, Ivar Sønbø</creator><contributor>Malaga, German</contributor><creatorcontrib>Ulvenes, Lidziya Vanahel ; Aasland, Olaf ; Nylenna, Magne ; Kristiansen, Ivar Sønbø ; Malaga, German</creatorcontrib><description>To answer five research questions: Do Norwegian physicians know about the three important aspects of EBM? Do they use EBM methods in their clinical practice? What are their attitudes towards EBM? Has EBM in their opinion changed medical practice during the last 10 years? Do they use EBM based information sources?
Cross sectional survey in 2006.
Norway.
966 doctors who responded to a questionnaire (70% response rate).
In total 87% of the physicians mentioned the use of randomised clinical trials as a key aspect of EBM, while 53% of them mentioned use of clinical expertise and only 19% patients' values. 40% of the respondents reported that their practice had always been evidence-based. Many respondents experienced difficulties in using EBM principles in their clinical practice because of lack of time and difficulties in searching EBM based literature. 80% agreed that EBM helps physicians towards better practice and 52% that it improves patients' health. As reasons for changes in medical practice 86% of respondents mentioned medical progress, but only 39% EBM.
The results of the study indicate that Norwegian physicians have a limited knowledge of the key aspects of EBM but a positive attitude towards the concept. They had limited experience in the practice of EBM and were rather indifferent to the impact of EBM on medical practice. For solving a patient problem, physicians would rather consult a colleague than searching evidence based resources such as the Cochrane Library.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0007828</identifier><identifier>PMID: 19915708</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Attitude of Health Personnel ; Attitudes ; Clinical medicine ; Clinical trials ; Cross-Sectional Studies ; Evidence-Based Healthcare ; Evidence-Based Healthcare/Bedside Evidence-Based Medicine ; Evidence-Based Healthcare/Clinical Decision-Making ; Evidence-based medicine ; Evidence-Based Medicine - education ; Health economics ; Health education ; Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice ; Humans ; Information sources ; Knowledge ; Likert scale ; Medical personnel ; Medical practice ; Medical research ; Medicine ; Patients ; Physicians ; Practice Patterns, Physicians ; Principal components analysis ; Public health ; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic ; Searching ; Surveys ; Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2009-11, Vol.4 (11), p.e7828-e7828</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2009 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2009 Ulvenes et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess</rights><rights>Ulvenes et al. 2009</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c687t-9055ffa58af60b982c8febbed2883d7a2b6a6bedf8b22dfdcaf5d99c3bd7930f3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c687t-9055ffa58af60b982c8febbed2883d7a2b6a6bedf8b22dfdcaf5d99c3bd7930f3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2773422/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2773422/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,315,728,781,785,865,886,2103,2929,23868,26569,27926,27927,53793,53795</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19915708$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Malaga, German</contributor><creatorcontrib>Ulvenes, Lidziya Vanahel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aasland, Olaf</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nylenna, Magne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kristiansen, Ivar Sønbø</creatorcontrib><title>Norwegian physicians' knowledge of and opinions about evidence-based medicine: cross-sectional study</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>To answer five research questions: Do Norwegian physicians know about the three important aspects of EBM? Do they use EBM methods in their clinical practice? What are their attitudes towards EBM? Has EBM in their opinion changed medical practice during the last 10 years? Do they use EBM based information sources?
Cross sectional survey in 2006.
Norway.
966 doctors who responded to a questionnaire (70% response rate).
In total 87% of the physicians mentioned the use of randomised clinical trials as a key aspect of EBM, while 53% of them mentioned use of clinical expertise and only 19% patients' values. 40% of the respondents reported that their practice had always been evidence-based. Many respondents experienced difficulties in using EBM principles in their clinical practice because of lack of time and difficulties in searching EBM based literature. 80% agreed that EBM helps physicians towards better practice and 52% that it improves patients' health. As reasons for changes in medical practice 86% of respondents mentioned medical progress, but only 39% EBM.
The results of the study indicate that Norwegian physicians have a limited knowledge of the key aspects of EBM but a positive attitude towards the concept. They had limited experience in the practice of EBM and were rather indifferent to the impact of EBM on medical practice. For solving a patient problem, physicians would rather consult a colleague than searching evidence based resources such as the Cochrane Library.</description><subject>Attitude of Health Personnel</subject><subject>Attitudes</subject><subject>Clinical medicine</subject><subject>Clinical trials</subject><subject>Cross-Sectional Studies</subject><subject>Evidence-Based Healthcare</subject><subject>Evidence-Based Healthcare/Bedside Evidence-Based Medicine</subject><subject>Evidence-Based Healthcare/Clinical Decision-Making</subject><subject>Evidence-based medicine</subject><subject>Evidence-Based Medicine - education</subject><subject>Health economics</subject><subject>Health education</subject><subject>Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Information sources</subject><subject>Knowledge</subject><subject>Likert scale</subject><subject>Medical personnel</subject><subject>Medical practice</subject><subject>Medical research</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Physicians</subject><subject>Practice Patterns, Physicians</subject><subject>Principal components analysis</subject><subject>Public health</subject><subject>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic</subject><subject>Searching</subject><subject>Surveys</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2009</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>3HK</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNk1tv0zAUgCMEYqPwDxBEQmLiocWxE8fhAWmauFSamMTt1Tq2j1uP1O7iZKP_HpdmrEU8ID_YPv7O1edk2dOCzApWF68vw9B5aGfr4HFGCKkFFfey46JhdMopYff3zkfZoxgvCamY4PxhdlQ0TVHVRBxn5lPobnDhwOfr5SY6nU7xJP_hw02LZoF5sDl4k4e18y74mIMKQ5_jtTPoNU4VRDT5Ck3S9Pgm112IcRpR94mGNo_9YDaPswcW2ohPxn2SfXv_7uvZx-n5xYf52en5VHNR99OGVJW1UAmwnKhGUC0sKoWGCsFMDVRx4OlqhaLUWKPBVqZpNFOmbhixbJI939ldtyHKsUBRFrShtCppgibZfEeYAJdy3bkVdBsZwMnfgtAtJHS90y1KTnXDVKE4LVVZIQdaA1FYihIaUZYk2Xo7ehtUKoBG33fQHhg9fPFuKRfhWtK6ZiWld-HqzsXeeelDB7IgoqKyrDnniTgZXXThasDYy5WLGtsWPIYhypqxRghRbBN78Rf57_RnO2oBKUPnbUiB6bQMrpxOjWRdkp-WNRWkLNg2gFcHConp8We_gCFGOf_y-f_Zi--H7Ms9donQ9ssY2mHbNfEQLG9rlBqrQ_unvgWR2zm4zVNu50COc5DUnu3_zZ3S2PjsF9JQBIU</recordid><startdate>20091113</startdate><enddate>20091113</enddate><creator>Ulvenes, Lidziya Vanahel</creator><creator>Aasland, Olaf</creator><creator>Nylenna, Magne</creator><creator>Kristiansen, Ivar Sønbø</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>3HK</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20091113</creationdate><title>Norwegian physicians' knowledge of and opinions about evidence-based medicine: cross-sectional study</title><author>Ulvenes, Lidziya Vanahel ; Aasland, Olaf ; Nylenna, Magne ; Kristiansen, Ivar Sønbø</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c687t-9055ffa58af60b982c8febbed2883d7a2b6a6bedf8b22dfdcaf5d99c3bd7930f3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2009</creationdate><topic>Attitude of Health Personnel</topic><topic>Attitudes</topic><topic>Clinical medicine</topic><topic>Clinical trials</topic><topic>Cross-Sectional Studies</topic><topic>Evidence-Based Healthcare</topic><topic>Evidence-Based Healthcare/Bedside Evidence-Based Medicine</topic><topic>Evidence-Based Healthcare/Clinical Decision-Making</topic><topic>Evidence-based medicine</topic><topic>Evidence-Based Medicine - education</topic><topic>Health economics</topic><topic>Health education</topic><topic>Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Information sources</topic><topic>Knowledge</topic><topic>Likert scale</topic><topic>Medical personnel</topic><topic>Medical practice</topic><topic>Medical research</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Physicians</topic><topic>Practice Patterns, Physicians</topic><topic>Principal components analysis</topic><topic>Public health</topic><topic>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic</topic><topic>Searching</topic><topic>Surveys</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Ulvenes, Lidziya Vanahel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aasland, Olaf</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nylenna, Magne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kristiansen, Ivar Sønbø</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Ulvenes, Lidziya Vanahel</au><au>Aasland, Olaf</au><au>Nylenna, Magne</au><au>Kristiansen, Ivar Sønbø</au><au>Malaga, German</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Norwegian physicians' knowledge of and opinions about evidence-based medicine: cross-sectional study</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2009-11-13</date><risdate>2009</risdate><volume>4</volume><issue>11</issue><spage>e7828</spage><epage>e7828</epage><pages>e7828-e7828</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>To answer five research questions: Do Norwegian physicians know about the three important aspects of EBM? Do they use EBM methods in their clinical practice? What are their attitudes towards EBM? Has EBM in their opinion changed medical practice during the last 10 years? Do they use EBM based information sources?
Cross sectional survey in 2006.
Norway.
966 doctors who responded to a questionnaire (70% response rate).
In total 87% of the physicians mentioned the use of randomised clinical trials as a key aspect of EBM, while 53% of them mentioned use of clinical expertise and only 19% patients' values. 40% of the respondents reported that their practice had always been evidence-based. Many respondents experienced difficulties in using EBM principles in their clinical practice because of lack of time and difficulties in searching EBM based literature. 80% agreed that EBM helps physicians towards better practice and 52% that it improves patients' health. As reasons for changes in medical practice 86% of respondents mentioned medical progress, but only 39% EBM.
The results of the study indicate that Norwegian physicians have a limited knowledge of the key aspects of EBM but a positive attitude towards the concept. They had limited experience in the practice of EBM and were rather indifferent to the impact of EBM on medical practice. For solving a patient problem, physicians would rather consult a colleague than searching evidence based resources such as the Cochrane Library.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>19915708</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0007828</doi><tpages>e7828</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
ispartof | PloS one, 2009-11, Vol.4 (11), p.e7828-e7828 |
issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_plos_journals_1292254279 |
source | MEDLINE; NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry |
subjects | Attitude of Health Personnel Attitudes Clinical medicine Clinical trials Cross-Sectional Studies Evidence-Based Healthcare Evidence-Based Healthcare/Bedside Evidence-Based Medicine Evidence-Based Healthcare/Clinical Decision-Making Evidence-based medicine Evidence-Based Medicine - education Health economics Health education Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice Humans Information sources Knowledge Likert scale Medical personnel Medical practice Medical research Medicine Patients Physicians Practice Patterns, Physicians Principal components analysis Public health Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic Searching Surveys Surveys and Questionnaires |
title | Norwegian physicians' knowledge of and opinions about evidence-based medicine: cross-sectional study |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-18T09%3A44%3A37IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Norwegian%20physicians'%20knowledge%20of%20and%20opinions%20about%20evidence-based%20medicine:%20cross-sectional%20study&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Ulvenes,%20Lidziya%20Vanahel&rft.date=2009-11-13&rft.volume=4&rft.issue=11&rft.spage=e7828&rft.epage=e7828&rft.pages=e7828-e7828&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0007828&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA472804136%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1292254279&rft_id=info:pmid/19915708&rft_galeid=A472804136&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_62c93b1b624b45e6a27a0be484a98440&rfr_iscdi=true |