Table 2 Study details for theory based EBP teaching strategies for undergraduate students

Ashktorab et al. 2014

Iran [45]

Quasi-Experimental with control

80 (control group n = 40; Intervention group, n = 40)

Knowledge, attitude, adoption

EBP questionnaire  [56]

Before and after the intervention (paired data).

EBP Knowledge - Post intervention; significant mean difference between intervention (mean score 45.2, SD = 3.89) and control groups (mean score 31, SD = 7.05) (paired t-test, p < 0.0001). No significant difference in mean knowledge scores prior to intervention (control group mean = 30.3, SD = 5.26; Intervention group mean = 29.2, SD = 7.09; paired t-test, p = 0.43). EBP attitudes - intervention group showed greater improvement from baseline (pre-test mean score = 45.17, SD = 9.65; post-test mean score = 61.27, SD = 7.22): control group (pre-test mean score = 48.15, SD = 7.26; post-test mean score = 48.77, SD = 7.67) (independent t test, p < 0.0001

Kim et al. 2009 [46]

USA

Quasi-Experimental pre-test, post-test study with control group

N = 208; intervention group = 88; control group = 120

Pre-test, post test data analyzed on 142 students (91 students competed pre and post data)

EBP knowledge, attitudes, use, future use

Johnston KAB questionnaire [57]

Beginning and end of semester (paired data).

(results all post intervention)

EBP knowledge – small increase in intervention group mean = 5.68 (n = 65), SEM = 0.05; (p = 0.001) vs. control group mean = 5.43 (n = 72), SEM = 0.06; (p = 0.001). Mean difference = 0.25 (independent t-test,

− 3.264; p = 0.001)

EBP attitudes - no significant difference between control and intervention groups (mean diff = − 0.12, p = 0.398). EBP use - small significant increase in mean difference (mean diff = 0.26 (independent t-test, − 2.465, p = 0.015). EBP future use - no significant difference between groups (mean diff =0.13, p = 0.255).

No significant differences at baseline.

Long et al. 2016 [49]

USA & Lebanon

Mixed-methods with 3 arms to quant component; RCT/quasi-experimental;

Arm 1: N = 72 (USA/BSN); N = 23 (ME/BSN);

N = 63 (USA/MSN); Arm 2: N = 37 (intervention);

N = 21 (control); Arm 3: N = 31 (intervention);

N = 39 (control)

Overall skills; application of skills; ability to distinguish credibility of information sources

Researcher developed assessment criteria based on tool by Ivanitskaya et al. [58] test, re-test reliability for Questions 1 & 2 (r = 0.83–0.81). Content validity testing reported 100% relevance to EBP

Pre–test at commencement of using tool; post-test within 3 weeks of completing assignment

EBP skills (web based intervention) - significant changes from baseline to follow up, for overall research skills in two different nursing undergraduate cohorts (p = 0.001) but no significant difference for distinguishing credibility of online sources (p = 0.070). Undergraduate students studying nutrition showed a significant positive difference between intervention and control groups from baseline to follow up. (p = 0.002) as well as significant difference from pre to post-test (p = 0.039).

Liabsuetrakul et al. 2009 [47]

Thailand

Longitudinal one group pre-test, post-test;

N = 259

EBM attitudes, skill

Researcher developed tool (Cronbach’s Alpha > 0.85 for each item)

Before course, 5 months (T1) then 15 months after baseline (T2)

Significant increase in EBM attitudes from baseline: T0 to T1 (5 months) (p < 0.001) with a lesser but still significant effect (p < 0.001) from T1 to T2 (15 months after T0). EBM skills – mean scores improved from pre-test at both time points - 5 months and at 15 months

Liabsuetrakul et al. 2013 [49]

Thailand

One group; pre-test, post- test;

N = 114

EBM knowledge, attitudes, skills

Researcher developed test; reliability analysis – Cronbach’s alpha 0.92

Before course, then at 1, 5, 13, 25 and 37 weeks post course (paired data)

EBM knowledge - increase in mean scores post intervention (p > 0.001) EBM skills: initial increase followed by a significant decrease in both groups when measured at weeks 5 and 13 (p < 0.001), increased significantly at 15 weeks (p = 0.05) after being given opportunity for individual learning and exposure to clinically scenarios. No significant difference between 4th and 5th year students (p = 0.17).

EBM attitudes – 5th year students significantly lower mean score than 4th year students before intervention (p = 0.002). Linear modelling identified initial increase in scores, followed by decrease at second and third data collection points (weeks 1 & 5), with statistically significant increase 25 weeks after the original EBM course (p = 0.003). Authors suggest continuous teaching of EBP throughout the 5-year course may impact result.