Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 428

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 31 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Core Competencies in Evidence-Based Practice for Health Professionals: Consensus Statement Based on a Systematic Review and Delphi Survey

Open access
Albarqouni, Loai, Hoffmann, Tammy, Straus, Sharon, Olsen, Nina Rydland, Young, Taryn, Ilic, Dragan, Shaneyfelt, Terrence, Haynes, R. Brian, Guyatt, Gordon, Glasziou, Paul·2018·JAMA Network Open

Abstract

Importance: Evidence-based practice (EBP) is necessary for improving the quality of health care as well as patient outcomes. Evidence-based practice is commonly integrated into the curricula of undergraduate, postgraduate, and continuing professional development health programs. There is, however, inconsistency in the curriculum content of EBP teaching and learning programs. A standardized set of minimum core competencies in EBP that health professionals should meet has the potential to standardize and improve education in EBP. Objective: To develop a consensus set of core competencies for health professionals in EBP. Evidence Review: For this modified Delphi survey study, a set of EBP core competencies that should be covered in EBP teaching and learning programs was developed in 4 stages: (1) generation of an initial set of relevant EBP competencies derived from a systematic review of EBP education studies for health professionals; (2) a 2-round, web-based Delphi survey of health professionals, selected using purposive sampling, to prioritize and gain consensus on the most essential EBP core competencies; (3) consensus meetings, both face-to-face and via video conference, to finalize the consensus on the most essential core competencies; and (4) feedback and endorsement from EBP experts. Findings: From an earlier systematic review of 83 EBP educational intervention studies, 86 unique EBP competencies were identified. In a Delphi survey of 234 participants representing a range of health professionals (physicians, nurses, and allied health professionals) who registered interest (88 [61.1%] women; mean [SD] age, 45.2 [10.2] years), 184 (78.6%) participated in round 1 and 144 (61.5%) in round 2. Consensus was reached on 68 EBP core competencies. The final set of EBP core competencies were grouped into the main EBP domains. For each key competency, a description of the level of detail or delivery was identified. Conclusions and Relevance: A consensus-based, contemporary set of EBP core competencies has been identified that may inform curriculum development of entry-level EBP teaching and learning programs for health professionals and benchmark standards for EBP teaching.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.0281

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 31 references

Cited by

See all 428

Metadata

Authors
Albarqouni, L., Hoffmann, T., Straus, S., Olsen, N. R., Young, T., Ilic, D., Shaneyfelt, T., Haynes, R. B., Guyatt, G., & Glasziou, P.
Venue
JAMA Network Open
Published
2018-06-22
Volume
1
Issue
2
Pages
e180281
ISSN
2574-3805 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2809361269
Cited by
428
References
31
FWCI
46.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Core Competencies in Evidence-Based Practice for Health Professionals: Consensus Statement Based on a Systematic Review and Delphi Survey. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.0281
The paper
Albarqouni, L., Hoffmann, T., Straus, S., Olsen, N. R., Young, T., Ilic, D., Shaneyfelt, T., Haynes, R. B., Guyatt, G., & Glasziou, P. (2018). Core Competencies in Evidence-Based Practice for Health Professionals: Consensus Statement Based on a Systematic Review and Delphi Survey. JAMA Network Open. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.0281

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.