15
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A systematic review and meta-analysis of online versus alternative methods for training licensed health care professionals to deliver clinical interventions

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Online training is growing in popularity and yet its effectiveness for training licensed health professionals (HCPs) in clinical interventions is not clear. We aimed to systematically review the literature on the effectiveness of online versus alternative training methods in clinical interventions for licensed Health Care Professionals (HCPs) on outcomes of knowledge acquisition, practical skills, clinical behaviour, self-efficacy and satisfaction.

          Methods

          Seven databases were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from January 2000 to June 2015. Two independent reviewers rated trial quality and extracted trial data. Comparative effects were summarised as standardised mean differences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals. Pooled effect sizes were calculated using a random-effects model for three contrasts of online versus (i) interactive workshops (ii) taught lectures and (iii) written/electronic manuals.

          Results

          We included 14 studies with a total of 1089 participants. Most trials studied medical professionals, used a workshop or lecture comparison, were of high risk of bias and had small sample sizes (range 21-183). Using the GRADE approach, we found low quality evidence that there was no difference between online training and an interactive workshop for clinical behaviour SMD 0.12 (95% CI -0.13 to 0.37). We found very low quality evidence of no difference between online methods and both a workshop and lecture for knowledge (workshop: SMD 0.04 (95% CI -0.28 to 0.36); lecture: SMD 0.22 (95% CI: -0.08, 0.51)). Lastly, compared to a manual ( n = 3/14), we found very low quality evidence that online methods were superior for knowledge SMD 0.99 (95% CI 0.02 to 1.96). There were too few studies to draw any conclusions on the effects of online training for practical skills, self-efficacy, and satisfaction across all contrasts.

          Conclusions

          It is likely that online methods may be as effective as alternative methods for training HCPs in clinical interventions for the outcomes of knowledge and clinical behaviour. However, the low quality of the evidence precludes drawing firm conclusions on the relative effectiveness of these training methods. Moreover, the confidence intervals around our effect sizes were large and could encompass important differences in effectiveness. More robust, adequately powered RCTs are needed.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (10.1186/s12909-017-1047-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references25

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Randomized, Controlled Trials, Observational Studies, and the Hierarchy of Research Designs

          New England Journal of Medicine, 342(25), 1887-1892
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Training Therapists in Evidence-Based Practice: A Critical Review of Studies From a Systems-Contextual Perspective.

            Evidence-based practice (EBP), a preferred psychological treatment approach, requires training of community providers. The systems-contextual (SC) perspective, a model for dissemination and implementation efforts, underscores the importance of the therapist, client, and organizational variables that influence training and consequent therapist uptake and adoption of EBP. This review critiques the extant research on training in EBP from an SC perspective. Findings suggest that therapist knowledge improves and attitudinal change occurs following training. However, change in therapist behaviors (e.g., adherence, competence, and skill) and client outcomes only occurs when training interventions address each level of the SC model and include active learning. Limitations as well as areas for future research are discussed.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Instructional design variations in internet-based learning for health professions education: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

              A recent systematic review (2008) described the effectiveness of Internet-based learning (IBL) in health professions education. A comprehensive synthesis of research investigating how to improve IBL is needed. This systematic review sought to provide such a synthesis. The authors searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, ERIC, TimeLit, and the University of Toronto Research and Development Resource Base for articles published from 1990 through November 2008. They included all studies quantifying the effect of IBL compared with another Internet-based or computer-assisted instructional intervention on practicing and student physicians, nurses, pharmacists, dentists, and other health professionals. Reviewers working independently and in duplicate abstracted information, coded study quality, and grouped studies according to inductively identified themes. From 2,705 articles, the authors identified 51 eligible studies, including 30 randomized trials. The pooled effect size (ES) for learning outcomes in 15 studies investigating high versus low interactivity was 0.27 (95% confidence interval, 0.08-0.46; P = .006). Also associated with higher learning were practice exercises (ES 0.40 [0.08-0.71; P = .01]; 10 studies), feedback (ES 0.68 [0.01-1.35; P = .047]; 2 studies), and repetition of study material (ES 0.19 [0.09-0.30; P or=89%) in most analyses. Meta-analyses for other themes generally yielded imprecise results. Interactivity, practice exercises, repetition, and feedback seem to be associated with improved learning outcomes, although inconsistency across studies tempers conclusions. Evidence for other instructional variations remains inconclusive.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Helen.richmond85@gmail.com
                bethan.copsey@ndorms.ox.ac.uk
                Amanda.hall@georgeinstitute.ox.ac.uk
                david.davies@warwick.ac.uk
                sarah.lamb@ndorms.ox.ac.uk
                Journal
                BMC Med Educ
                BMC Med Educ
                BMC Medical Education
                BioMed Central (London )
                1472-6920
                23 November 2017
                23 November 2017
                2017
                : 17
                : 227
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0000 8809 1613, GRID grid.7372.1, Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, Division of Health Sciences, , Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, ; Coventry, UK
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8948, GRID grid.4991.5, Centre for Rehabilitation Research, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, , Rheumatology, and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, ; Oxford, UK
                [3 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8948, GRID grid.4991.5, The George Institute for Global Health, , University of Oxford, ; Oxford, UK
                [4 ]ISNI 0000 0000 8809 1613, GRID grid.7372.1, Warwick Medical School, , University of Warwick, ; Coventry, UK
                Article
                1047
                10.1186/s12909-017-1047-4
                5701457
                29169393
                5254f6e7-beae-44b5-b315-edcf38f0d59e
                © The Author(s). 2017

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 2 November 2016
                : 2 November 2017
                Funding
                Funded by: West Midlands strategic health authority
                Funded by: NIHR CLAHRC Oxford
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2017

                Education
                online training/learning,internet based training/learning,e-learning,health professionals,continuing education,professional development,training,meta-analysis,systematic review

                Comments

                Comment on this article