Premium
Dental hygienists’ research utilization: influence of context and attitudes
Author(s) -
Cobban SJ,
ProfettoMcGrath J
Publication year - 2011
Publication title -
international journal of dental hygiene
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.674
H-Index - 38
eISSN - 1601-5037
pISSN - 1601-5029
DOI - 10.1111/j.1601-5037.2010.00484.x
Subject(s) - cronbach's alpha , context (archaeology) , likert scale , medicine , scale (ratio) , survey research , descriptive statistics , family medicine , psychology , applied psychology , clinical psychology , psychometrics , statistics , mathematics , paleontology , developmental psychology , physics , quantum mechanics , biology
To cite this article:
Int J Dent Hygiene9 , 2011; 191–198
DOI: 10.1111/j.1601‐5037.2010.00484.x
Cobban SJ, Profetto‐McGrath J. Dental hygienists’ research utilization: influence of context and attitudes. Abstract: Background: Research use is a core component of evidence‐based practice (EBP), contributing to improved patient outcomes; however, we know little about factors influencing research use among dental hygienists. The purpose of this study is to examine whether individual’s attitudes and organizational context influence dental hygienists’ research use. Methods: A cross‐sectional survey design was used to study research use among a geographically stratified probability sample of 1100 Canadian dental hygienists. A translated French‐language version was provided for Francophone dental hygienists. Descriptive and inferential analyses were performed using SPSS. Results: Mean responses were highest for conceptual research use (RU) (4.1), followed by overall RU (3.7), direct RU (3.3), and persuasive RU (3.3), on a five‐point Likert scale. Internal consistency reliability for attitude and context scales was high (Cronbach’s alpha 0.86 and 0.83, respectively). Repeated measures t ‐tests found significant differences between willingness to implement research and frequency of actually implementing research ( P < 0.001 for paired comparisons), and ratings of importance of supportive practice characteristics were significantly higher than their actual presence ( P < 0.001 for paired comparisons). A multiple linear regression model found the variables attitude, context, and years of practice explained 19.0% of the variation in responses. Discussion: Significant differences between willingness to implement research and actual implementation, and between perceived importance of supportive practice characteristics and their presence, require exploration of these differences. Conclusion: These findings support the importance of the practice context and individual attitudes for research uptake by dental hygienists. Knowledge translation theories can inform further research and contribute greater explanatory power to this preliminary model.