Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: To identify and reach consensus on dimensions and criteria of a competence assessment instrument for health professionals in relation to the process of evidence-based healthcare.
METHODS: A two-round Delphi survey was carried out from April to June 2023.
METHODS: Consensus was sought from an expert panel on the instrument preliminarily established based on the JBI Model of Evidence-Based Healthcare and a rapid review of systematic reviews of relevant literature. The level of consensus was reflected by the concentration and coordination of experts\' opinions and percentage of agreement. The instrument was revised significantly based on the combination of data analysis, the experts\' comments and research group discussions.
RESULTS: Sixteen national and three international experts were involved in the first-round Delphi survey and 17 experts participated in the second-round survey. In both rounds, full consensus was reached on the four dimensions of the instrument, namely evidence-generation, evidence-synthesis, evidence-transfer and evidence-implementation. In round-one, the instrument was revised from 77 to 61 items. In round-two, the instrument was further revised to have 57 items under the four dimensions in the final version.
CONCLUSIONS: The Delphi survey achieved consensus on the instrument. The validity and reliability of the instrument needs to be tested in future research internationally.
UNASSIGNED: Systematic assessment of nurses and other health professionals\' competencies in different phases of evidence-based healthcare process based on this instrument provides implications for their professional development and multidisciplinary team collaboration in evidence-based practice and better care process and outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: This study addresses a research gap of lacking an instrument to systematically assess interprofessional competencies in relation to the process of EBHC. The instrument covers the four phases of EBHC process with minimal criteria, highlighting essential aspects of ability to be developed. Identification of health professionals\' level of competence in these aspects helps strengthen their capacity accordingly so as to promote virtuous EBHC ecosystem for the ending purpose of improving global healthcare outcomes.
UNASSIGNED: This study was reported in line with the Conducting and REporting of DElphi studies (CREDES) guidance on Delphi studies.
UNASSIGNED: No patient or public contribution.
METHODS: A two-round Delphi survey was carried out from April to June 2023.
METHODS: Consensus was sought from an expert panel on the instrument preliminarily established based on the JBI Model of Evidence-Based Healthcare and a rapid review of systematic reviews of relevant literature. The level of consensus was reflected by the concentration and coordination of experts\' opinions and percentage of agreement. The instrument was revised significantly based on the combination of data analysis, the experts\' comments and research group discussions.
RESULTS: Sixteen national and three international experts were involved in the first-round Delphi survey and 17 experts participated in the second-round survey. In both rounds, full consensus was reached on the four dimensions of the instrument, namely evidence-generation, evidence-synthesis, evidence-transfer and evidence-implementation. In round-one, the instrument was revised from 77 to 61 items. In round-two, the instrument was further revised to have 57 items under the four dimensions in the final version.
CONCLUSIONS: The Delphi survey achieved consensus on the instrument. The validity and reliability of the instrument needs to be tested in future research internationally.
UNASSIGNED: Systematic assessment of nurses and other health professionals\' competencies in different phases of evidence-based healthcare process based on this instrument provides implications for their professional development and multidisciplinary team collaboration in evidence-based practice and better care process and outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: This study addresses a research gap of lacking an instrument to systematically assess interprofessional competencies in relation to the process of EBHC. The instrument covers the four phases of EBHC process with minimal criteria, highlighting essential aspects of ability to be developed. Identification of health professionals\' level of competence in these aspects helps strengthen their capacity accordingly so as to promote virtuous EBHC ecosystem for the ending purpose of improving global healthcare outcomes.
UNASSIGNED: This study was reported in line with the Conducting and REporting of DElphi studies (CREDES) guidance on Delphi studies.
UNASSIGNED: No patient or public contribution.
摘要：
目的：确定与循证医疗保健过程相关的卫生专业人员能力评估工具的维度和标准并达成共识。
方法：在2023年4月至6月进行了两轮Delphi调查。
方法：专家小组就基于JBI循证医疗保健模型和相关文献的系统综述的快速综述初步建立的工具寻求共识。专家意见的集中和协调以及同意的百分比反映了共识的水平。该仪器在结合数据分析的基础上进行了重大修订，专家们的评论和研究小组的讨论。
结果：16位国家和3位国际专家参与了第一轮德尔菲调查，17位专家参与了第二轮调查。在两轮中，就文书的四个方面达成了充分共识，即证据产生，证据综合，证据转移和证据实施。在第一轮中，该文书从77项修订为61项。在第二轮中，该仪器进一步修订，在最终版本的四个维度下有57个项目。
结论：德尔菲调查在该工具上达成了共识。该工具的有效性和可靠性需要在未来的国际研究中进行检验。
基于该工具对护士和其他卫生专业人员在循证医疗保健过程的不同阶段的能力进行系统评估，为他们的专业发展和多学科团队合作提供了启示，在循证实践和更好的护理过程和结果。
结论：这项研究解决了缺乏一种工具来系统地评估与EBHC过程相关的跨专业能力的研究空白。该仪器以最低标准涵盖EBHC工艺的四个阶段，强调要发展的能力的基本方面。确定卫生专业人员在这些方面的能力水平有助于相应地增强他们的能力，从而促进良性的EBHC生态系统，以最终改善全球医疗保健成果。
■本研究报告符合Delphi研究的开展和恢复（CREDES）指南。
■没有患者或公众捐款。
方法：在2023年4月至6月进行了两轮Delphi调查。
方法：专家小组就基于JBI循证医疗保健模型和相关文献的系统综述的快速综述初步建立的工具寻求共识。专家意见的集中和协调以及同意的百分比反映了共识的水平。该仪器在结合数据分析的基础上进行了重大修订，专家们的评论和研究小组的讨论。
结果：16位国家和3位国际专家参与了第一轮德尔菲调查，17位专家参与了第二轮调查。在两轮中，就文书的四个方面达成了充分共识，即证据产生，证据综合，证据转移和证据实施。在第一轮中，该文书从77项修订为61项。在第二轮中，该仪器进一步修订，在最终版本的四个维度下有57个项目。
结论：德尔菲调查在该工具上达成了共识。该工具的有效性和可靠性需要在未来的国际研究中进行检验。
基于该工具对护士和其他卫生专业人员在循证医疗保健过程的不同阶段的能力进行系统评估，为他们的专业发展和多学科团队合作提供了启示，在循证实践和更好的护理过程和结果。
结论：这项研究解决了缺乏一种工具来系统地评估与EBHC过程相关的跨专业能力的研究空白。该仪器以最低标准涵盖EBHC工艺的四个阶段，强调要发展的能力的基本方面。确定卫生专业人员在这些方面的能力水平有助于相应地增强他们的能力，从而促进良性的EBHC生态系统，以最终改善全球医疗保健成果。
■本研究报告符合Delphi研究的开展和恢复（CREDES）指南。
■没有患者或公众捐款。
