Evidence-Based Practice Competencies among Nutrition Professionals and Students: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based practice (EBP) promotes shared decision-making between clinicians and patients. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to determine EBP competencies among nutrition professionals and students reported in the literature. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review by searching Medline, Embase, CINAHL, ERIC, CENTRAL, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, BIOSIS Citation Index, and clinicaltrials.gov up to March 2023. Eligible primary studies had to assess one of the 6 predefined EBP competencies: formulating clinical questions; searching literature for best evidence; assessing studies for methodological quality; effect size; certainty of evidence for effects; and determining the applicability of study results considering patient values and preferences. Two reviewers independently screened articles and extracted data, and results were summarized for each EBP competency. RESULTS: We identified 12 eligible cross-sectional survey studies, comprising 1065 participants, primarily registered dietitians, across 6 countries, with the majority assessed in the United States (n = 470). The reporting quality of the survey studies was poor overall, with 43% of items not reported. Only 1 study (8%) explicitly used an objective questionnaire to assess EBP competencies. In general, the 6 competencies were incompletely defined or reported (e.g., it was unclear what applicability and critical appraisal referred to and what study designs were appraised by the participants). Two core competencies, interpreting effect size and certainty of evidence for effects, were not assessed. CONCLUSIONS: The overall quality of study reports was poor, and the questionnaires were predominantly self-perceived, as opposed to objective assessments. No studies reported on competencies in interpreting effect size or certainty of evidence, competencies essential for optimizing clinical nutrition decision-making. Future surveys should objectively assess core EBP competencies using sensible, specific questionnaires. Furthermore, EBP competencies need to be standardized across dietetic programs to minimize heterogeneity in the training, understanding, evaluation, and application among dietetics practitioners. This study was registered at PROSPERO as CRD42022311916.

Understanding effect size: an international online survey among psychiatrists, psychologists, physicians from other medical specialities, dentists and other health professionals.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Various ways exist to display the effectiveness of medical treatment options. This study examined various psychiatric, medical and allied professionals' understanding and perceived usefulness of eight effect size indices for presenting both dichotomous and continuous outcome data. METHODS: We surveyed 1316 participants from 13 countries using an online questionnaire. We presented hypothetical treatment effects of interventions versus placebo concerning chronic pain using eight different effect size measures. For each index, the participants had to judge the magnitude of the shown effect, to indicate how certain they felt about their own answer and how useful they found the given effect size index. FINDINGS: Overall, 762 (57.9%) participants fully completed the questionnaire. In terms of understanding, the best results emerged when both the control event rate (CER) and the experimental event rate (EER) were presented. The difference in minimal importance difference units (MID unit) was understood worst. Respondents also found CER and EER to be the most useful presentation approach while they rated MID unit as the least useful. Confidence in the risk ratio ranked high, even though it was rather poorly understood. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: For dichotomous outcomes, presenting the effects in terms of the CER and EER could lead to the most correct interpretation. Relative measures including the risk ratio must be supplemented with absolute measures such as the CER and EER. Effects on continuous outcomes were better understood through standardised mean differences than mean differences. These can also be supplemented by dichotomised CER and EER.