Table 1 Study eligibility and exclusion criteria

Design: randomised or non-randomised published in peer reviewed journals irrespective of language or date of publication.

Population: health professionals > 18 years of age irrespective of the level of education of the learner (undergraduate, postgraduate), including medicine, nursing and allied health (physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy, dietetics, social work, psychology, podiatry ambulance paramedic, ambulance office, music therapy, art therapy, osteopathy, chiropractic, dentistry, optometry, medical radiations, pharmacy and exercise physiology professions) [22].

Intervention: All types of educational interventions (e.g. journal club, workshop, short course) or education to facilitate the development of any of the five foundational steps of EBP (ask, acquire, appraise, apply and assess) [23].

Comparator: All comparators: different educational intervention, ‘usual care’ or no intervention.

Outcomes: Twenty-five potential data items in five prospectively determined domains developed using the CONSORT statement [11] and categories used by Robb et al. [24]: (1) Participants/Instructors (8 items), (2) Intervention mode and delivery (9 items), (3) Intervention content (3 items), (4) Evaluation (4 items) and (5) Confounding issues (1 item).

Studies:

• without a control group; or narratives, letters and books providing recommendations or strategies for teaching skills in EBP.

• which described or reported evidence-based guidelines or educational interventions specific to health conditions rather than educational interventions to develop skills and knowledge of EBP (e.g. evidence-based education for conservative management of hip osteoarthritis).

• which focused on educational interventions for facilitating learning of statistical concepts without addressing at least one of the five EBP steps.

• that reported barriers, facilitators, attitudes, and behaviours relating to EBP without an educational intervention.