Downloads provided by UsageCounts
INTRODUCTION Evidence Based Medicine (EBM) has appeared to be accepted as a pointer for health care quality. Over the past 20 years, EBM has dominated much of the healthcare and policy literature due to its success and the wider use of its theory. It has also been credited with proving the efficacy of many treatments and exposing the ineffectiveness of many others. METHODOLOGY A cross-sectional descriptive study was performed on a randomly selected sample of 264 hospital doctors from four Penang main hospitals. Awareness and Attitude towards EBM, accessing to internet and Midlines and perceived barriers to practice EBM among participants were the main outcome measures. RESULTS 92.1% strongly welcomed introduction and promotion of EBM in daily management of patients. About 92 % of respondents heard about EBM. Most of the participants had access to internet (89%) and those who were never had a course on EBM were (40.5%). Only 73 % who used EBM in their clinical practice. The major barriers to practicing EBM were no time due to patient overload (85%), lack of libraries (65%) limited resource (62%) and lack of training (60%). CONCLUSION Although there is a high support among doctors for the promotion of EBM, there is a deficit in knowledge and lack of skills of EBM. Hence, the time is suitable for planning and implementing an effective EBM educational programme for both undergraduate and postgraduate doctors. Evidence-based medicine has limitations, and more efforts need to be directed toward improving doctors' skills and access to evidence at the point of care. Disclaimer: Abstract text might vary slightly from what is displayed in the e-poster.
This poster was submitted to the 14th National Conference for Clinical Research (NCCR) in August 18-20, 2021. https://nccrconference.com.my/
Evidence-based medicine, cross-sectional, doctors
Evidence-based medicine, cross-sectional, doctors
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 0 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
| views | 3 | |
| downloads | 3 |

Views provided by UsageCounts
Downloads provided by UsageCounts