ORCID Profile
0000-0002-4513-4964
Current Organisation
University of Cambridge
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: BMJ
Date: 10-2019
DOI: 10.1136/BMJOPEN-2019-031809
Abstract: To explore the extent to which doctors and dentists in training within the UK and Republic of Ireland (RoI) engage in and with evidence-based practice (EBP), and to identify motivators and barriers to them doing so. An observational, prepiloted web-based survey developed by a trainee-led focus group. The survey instrument was disseminated to doctors and dentists in training within the UK and RoI during June 2017 via social media and through deaneries, Royal Colleges and specialty-specific mailing lists. Data from 243 trainees were analysed 188 doctors from 31 specialties and 55 dentists from 9 specialties. Responses were received from trainees at all stages of postgraduate training though the overall response rate was low. The motivators and barriers to, and the extent of, trainee engagement with EBP. Cronbach’s α was 0.83. Most trainees (87.6% (n=148) of doctors and 75.1% (n=39) of dentists) consulted the evidence base at least monthly, while 23.1% [n=39 doctors, 12 dentists] of both specialties did so daily. The two most commonly cited barriers to engagement with EBP for both doctors and dentists, respectively, were insufficient time (57.6% (n=95) and 45.1% (n=23)) and a tendency to follow departmental practice (40.6% (n=67) and 45.1% (n=23)). Key motivators for EBP included curiosity, following the ex le set by senior colleagues and a desire to avoid harm. Most trainees reported high levels of confidence interpreting evidence yet for 26.8% (n=45) of doctors and 36.5% (n=19) of dentists, medical hierarchy would impede them querying a colleague’s management plan based on their own reading of the evidence. Time, accepted departmental practice and the behaviour of senior clinicians all highly impact on trainee engagement with EBP. Given the low response rate, the extent to which these data represent the overall population is unclear.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 26-06-2012
DOI: 10.1002/ART.34414
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 02-12-2020
DOI: 10.1007/S13187-019-01647-7
Abstract: In many countries, patients with concerning skin lesions will first consult a primary care physician (PCP). Dermoscopy has an evidence base supporting its use in primary care for skin cancer detection, but need for training has been cited as a key barrier to its use. How PCPs train to use dermoscopy is unclear. A scoping literature review was carried out to examine what is known from the published literature about PCP training in dermoscopy. The methodological steps taken in this review followed those described by Arksey and O’Malley, as revised by Levac et al . Four electronic databases were searched for evidence published up to June 2018. Sixteen articles were identified for analysis, all published since 2000. Ten training programs were identified all of which addressed dermoscopy of pigmented skin lesions, among other topics. Ten articles reported on a range of outcomes measured after training and showed generally positive results in terms of improved diagnostic performance, although no meta-analysis was conducted. However, it was unclear whether trained PCPs continued to use dermoscopy after training. Observational questionnaire data revealed that many PCPs use dermoscopy in practice without any formal training. The literature generally supports the use of dermoscopy by PCPs, but it is unclear whether current training leads to long-term change in PCPs’ use of dermoscopy in clinical practice. Understanding this problem, as well as exploring PCPs’ training needs, is essential to develop training programs that will facilitate the uptake and use of dermoscopy in primary care.
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
No related grants have been discovered for Christopher Jones.