Clinical Prevention and Population Health Curriculum Framework: the nursing perspective.

The Clinical Prevention and Population Health Curriculum Framework (Curriculum Framework) was developed by the Healthy People Curriculum Task Force comprised of representatives from allopathic and osteopathic medicine, dentistry, nursing and nurse practitioners, pharmacy and physicians assistants. This multidiscipline Task Force was covened to address the Healthy People 2010 objective of increasing the health promotion/prevention content in health professional education. A focus on clinical prevention and population health activities is central to the goal of improving the health status of the nation and offers the greatest potential to reduce many leading causes of death and improve quality of life across diverse populations. The Curriculum Framework provides a set of 4 components (evidence base for practice, clinical preventive services, health systems/health policy and community aspects of practice) and 19 domains for organizing and implementing the curriculum. The title "Clinical Prevention and Population Health" includes both individual and population focused health promotion and prevention efforts. The role of nursing in developing the Curriculum Framework, and the tailoring and implementation of the Curriculum Framework for undergraduate and graduate programs in nursing is discussed.

Factors associated with success in searching MEDLINE and applying evidence to answer clinical questions.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to assess the ability of medical and nurse practitioner students to use MEDLINE to obtain evidence for answering clinical questions and to identify factors associated with the successful answering of questions. METHODS: A convenience sample of medical and nurse practitioner students was recruited. After completing instruments measuring demographic variables, computer and searching attitudes and experience, and cognitive traits, the subjects were given a brief orientation to MEDLINE searching and the techniques of evidence-based medicine. The subjects were then given 5 questions (from a pool of 20) to answer in two sessions using the Ovid MEDLINE system and the Oregon Health & Science University library collection. Each question was answered using three possible responses that reflected the quality of the evidence. All actions capable of being logged by the Ovid system were captured. Statistical analysis was performed using a model based on generalized estimating equations. The relevance-based measures of recall and precision were measured by defining end queries and having relevance judgments made by physicians who were not associated with the study. RESULTS: Forty-five medical and 21 nurse practitioner students provided usable answers to 324 questions. The rate of correctness increased from 32.3 to 51.6 percent for medical students and from 31.7 to 34.7 percent for nurse practitioner students. Ability to answer questions correctly was most strongly associated with correctness of the answer before searching, user experience with MEDLINE features, the evidence-based medicine question type, and the spatial visualization score. The spatial visualization score showed multi-colinearity with student type (medical vs. nurse practitioner). Medical and nurse practitioner students obtained comparable recall and precision, neither of which was associated with correctness of the answer. CONCLUSIONS: Medical and nurse practitioner students in this study were at best moderately successful at answering clinical questions correctly with the assistance of literature searching. The results confirm the importance of evaluating both search ability and the ability to use the resulting information to accomplish a clinical task.