Scholarlink

Background <p>Numerous instruments have been suggested to analyze the essential Evidence-Based Dentistry (EBD) dimensions, but it is unclear whether they were comprehensive and validated appropriately.</p> Aim <p>To investigate instruments that assess EBD-related dimensions.</p> Methods <p>We included primary studies involving dentists, faculty members, or dental students at any level of professional career that described validation or translation/transcultural adaptation processes of EBD instruments or reported the application of such instruments. Searches were conducted at PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus, along with manual searches in EBD journals, Google Scholar and reference lists. Descriptive data were collected and standardized in tables, and summarized.</p> Results <p>Fifty studies were included. The KACE (Knowledge, Attitudes, Access, and Confidence Evaluation) instrument demonstrated clarity, internal consistency, face validity, discriminant validity, and responsiveness, but neglected important dimensions such as EBD-related practices, patient benefits, barriers/facilitators, and willingness to learn and disseminate EBD practices. The modified Berlin questionnaire designed to measure perceived/actual knowledge, showed clarity, internal consistency, content validity, and discriminant validity, but lacked data on reproducibility, face validity, construct validity, and responsiveness. Other questionnaires, while broader, had significant limitations in reported reliability and validation.</p> Conclusions <p>Although the KACE instrument and the modified Berlin questionnaire underwent relatively rigorous reliability and validation testing, they were considered insufficiently comprehensive. When analyzed together, other questionnaires were found to be relatively more comprehensive, but they exhibited more significant limitations regarding reported reliability and validation assessments. This suggests the need for a novel instrument that fulfills a more significant number of validation phases and EBD-related dimensions.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Questionnaires related to Evidence-Based Practice applied to dentists, faculty members or dental students: a scoping review

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年5月1日

查看全文
  • Viviane Oliveira Prado,
  • Carlos Flores-Mir,
  • Magda Feres,
  • Luciana Faria Sanglard,
  • Rafaela Manente,
  • Paulo Nelson-Filho,
  • Murilo Fernando Neuppmann Feres

摘要

Background

Numerous instruments have been suggested to analyze the essential Evidence-Based Dentistry (EBD) dimensions, but it is unclear whether they were comprehensive and validated appropriately.

Aim

To investigate instruments that assess EBD-related dimensions.

Methods

We included primary studies involving dentists, faculty members, or dental students at any level of professional career that described validation or translation/transcultural adaptation processes of EBD instruments or reported the application of such instruments. Searches were conducted at PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus, along with manual searches in EBD journals, Google Scholar and reference lists. Descriptive data were collected and standardized in tables, and summarized.

Results

Fifty studies were included. The KACE (Knowledge, Attitudes, Access, and Confidence Evaluation) instrument demonstrated clarity, internal consistency, face validity, discriminant validity, and responsiveness, but neglected important dimensions such as EBD-related practices, patient benefits, barriers/facilitators, and willingness to learn and disseminate EBD practices. The modified Berlin questionnaire designed to measure perceived/actual knowledge, showed clarity, internal consistency, content validity, and discriminant validity, but lacked data on reproducibility, face validity, construct validity, and responsiveness. Other questionnaires, while broader, had significant limitations in reported reliability and validation.

Conclusions

Although the KACE instrument and the modified Berlin questionnaire underwent relatively rigorous reliability and validation testing, they were considered insufficiently comprehensive. When analyzed together, other questionnaires were found to be relatively more comprehensive, but they exhibited more significant limitations regarding reported reliability and validation assessments. This suggests the need for a novel instrument that fulfills a more significant number of validation phases and EBD-related dimensions.