Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 888

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

General practitioners' perceptions of the route to evidence based medicine: a questionnaire survey

Open access
McColl, A., Smith, H., White, P., Field, J.·1998·BMJ

Abstract

Abstract Objectives: To determine the attitude of general practitioners towards evidence based medicine and their related educational needs. Design: A questionnaire study of general practitioners. Setting: General practice in the former Wessex region, England. Subjects: Randomly selected sample of 25% of all general practitioners (452), of whom 302 replied. Main outcome measures: Respondents9 attitude towards evidence based medicine, ability to access and interpret evidence, perceived barriers to practising evidence based medicine, and best method of moving from opinion based to evidence based medicine. Results: Respondents mainly welcomed evidence based medicine and agreed that its practice improves patient care. They had a low level of awareness of extracting journals, review publications, and databases (only 40% knew of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews), and, even if aware, many did not use them. In their surgeries 20% had access to bibliographic databases and 17% to the world wide web. Most had some understanding of the technical terms used. The major perceived barrier to practising evidence based medicine was lack of personal time. Respondents thought the most appropriate way to move towards evidence based general practice was by using evidence based guidelines or proposals developed by colleagues. Conclusion: Promoting and improving access to summaries of evidence, rather than teaching all general practitioners literature searching and critical appraisal, would be the more appropriate method of encouraging evidence based general practice. General practitioners who are skilled in accessing and interpreting evidence should be encouraged to develop local evidence based guidelines and advice. Key messages Despite considerable variation in 302 general practitioners9 attitudes to the promotion of evidence based medicine, most were welcoming and agreed that it improved patient care There was a low level of awareness of extracting journals, review publications, and databases relevant to evidence based medicine, and the major perceived barrier to its practice was lack of personal time In their surgery only 20% of general practitioners had access to Medline or other bibliographic databases and 17% had access to the world wide web Most had some understanding of the technical terms used in evidence based medicine, but less than a third felt able to explain to others the meaning of these terms Respondents thought that the best way to move from opinion based practice towards evidence based medicine was by using evidence based guidelines or protocols developed by colleagues

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 · 10.1136/bmj.316.7128.361

Cites

1 of 1 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 1 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
McColl, A., Smith, H., White, P., & Field, J.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
1998-01-31
Volume
316
Issue
7128
Pages
361-365
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W1964218750
Cited by
888
References
1
FWCI
84.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

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.