Communication channels to promote evidence-based practice: a survey of primary care clinicians to determine perceived effects

BACKGROUND: Research suggests that the channels through which evidence-based practices are communicated to healthcare professionals can shape the ways they engage with, and use, this information. For instance, there is evidence to suggest that information should be communicated via sources that are deemed to be credible, like government departments, professional bodies and peers. This article examines the contention that information should be communicated via credible sources. More specifically, the article examines the different communication channels through which primary care clinicians learnt of resources on evidence-based sexual healthcare – namely, clinical aides and online training programs. Furthermore, the article determines whether these communication channels influenced the perceived impact of the resources. METHODS: Primary care clinicians in Australia (n = 413), notably General Practitioners (n = 214) and Practice Nurses (n = 217), were surveyed on the GP Project – a suite of resources to promote evidence-based sexual healthcare within primary care. Survey items pertained to the source of information about the resources (or communication channel), perceived usefulness of the resources, frequency of use, subsequent contact with the Sexual Health Infoline and a sexual health clinic, as well as the perceived impact of the resources. To determine the relationships between the different communication channels and the perceived impact of the resources, a one-way ANOVA using Tukey’s post-hoc test, an independent sample t-test, a χ(2) test, and a Kruskal–Wallis H test were performed where appropriate. RESULTS: Of the respondents who were aware of the clinical aides (49.9%), the largest proportion became aware of these through an educational event or a colleague. Of those who were aware of the online training programs (36.9%), the largest proportion became aware of these through a professional body or government organisation, either directly or via their website. Although both resource types were reported to improve clinical practice, the reported use and the perceived impact of the resources were not influenced by the way the clinicians learnt of the resources. CONCLUSIONS: These findings cast doubt on the suggestion that the channels through which evidence-based practices are communicated to healthcare professionals shape the ways they engage with, and use, this information, as well as the perceived impact of this information. Given the importance of evidence-based practices, these curious findings suggest that the source of this information might be of little consequence.