You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Letter
Evidence base needs among clinicians
  1. Robert Atenstaedt1,
  2. Jon Brassey2,
  3. Pamela Jones3,
  4. Mair Martin4,
  5. Nathan Owen3,
  6. Fiona Woods5
  1. 1Public Health Wales, Abergele, Conwy and Institute of Health, Medical Sciences & Society, Glyndŵr University, Wrexham, UK
  2. 2Public Health Wales Observatory, Pontypool, Torfaen, UK
  3. 3North Wales NHS Library Service, Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, Bangor, Gwynedd, UK
  4. 4Medicines Information Service, Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, Bangor, Gwynedd, UK
  5. 5Welsh Medicines Information Centre, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, UK
  1. Correspondence to Professor Robert Atenstaedt, Abergele Hospital, Llanfair Road, Abergele, Conwy LL22 8DP, UK; Robert.Atenstaedt{at}wales.nhs.uk

https://doi.org/10.1136/ebmed-2014-110052

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Prompt access to the latest evidence base is important when making clinical decisions. A survey of evidence base requirements was undertaken among clinicians working in hospital and community services in North West Wales. North Wales is a region of the UK with a population of 670 000 served by Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board (BCUHB).

    An anonymous survey instrument was designed, piloted and then sent out to the entire email circulation list of the Western Division of BCUHB marked ‘For Clinicians Only’. Anonymous replies were gathered. A reminder was sent 2 weeks later and a final reminder a month later.

    Two-hundred and nineteen …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors RA chaired the project group which designed and implemented the survey, drafted the paper and made the necessary revisions; JB put the survey into an electronic form, analysed the data and reviewed the paper; PJ and MM helped to interpret the survey data and reviewed the paper. FW assisted in interpreting the survey and reviewed the paper. NO reviewed the paper and provided the project with IT support.

    • Competing interests None.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.