RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: In 2014, an expert panel from the American Physical Therapy Association Academy of Research Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) special interest group created the Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) EBP Curricular Guideline (EBP-CG). This study describes faculty awareness of the EBP-CG, DPT curricular alignment with its terminal objectives, EBP-CG uses, and challenges addressing the objectives. REVIEW OF LITERATURE: DPT educators frequently use core curriculum guidelines (CGs) that articulate entry-level knowledge and skills to determine competencies. No such guidelines existed for EBP in 2012 leading to the EBP-CG development to assist educators. Few CGs have been studied for their impact on content standardization. A mixed methods design was chosen to more completely describe this CG's impact. SUBJECTS: Faculty teaching EBP in US accredited DPT programs. METHODS: A mixed-methods design explored what EBP-CG objectives are addressed, to what expected mastery levels, and how faculty use the document. RESULTS: Eighty-three of 252 accredited programs completed the survey; 14 respondents were interviewed. The EBP-CG was valued and viewed as reflecting curricular content. Its 33 objectives were taught by most respondents at knowledge and practice levels with independent mastery expected for 7. Interviewees described EBP as commonly practiced through group over individual projects. More EBP curriculum credits predicted more objectives taught (R = .29, R2 = .09, P = .03) and expected for mastery (R = .28, R2 = .08, P = .04). No interviewees shared the EBP-CG with clinical partners or Directors of Clinical Education; EBP carryover from classroom to practice is unknown. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Respondents confirmed that the EBP-CG objectives were useful and consistent with curricular content. Four EBP preparation gaps were identified: 1) limited EBP-CG awareness by faculty who teach EBP, 2) use of group over independent projects to practice EBP, 3) communication gaps between academic and clinical education settings about the EBP-CG, and 4) no consensus on minimum EBP competencies.
