27
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    1
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Development and validation of the guideline for reporting evidence-based practice educational interventions and teaching (GREET)

      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

          The majority of reporting guidelines assist researchers to report consistent information concerning study design, however, they contain limited information for describing study interventions. Using a three-stage development process, the Guideline for Reporting Evidence-based practice Educational interventions and Teaching (GREET) checklist and accompanying explanatory paper were developed to provide guidance for the reporting of educational interventions for evidence-based practice (EBP). The aim of this study was to complete the final development for the GREET checklist, incorporating psychometric testing to determine inter-rater reliability and criterion validity.

          Methods

          The final development for the GREET checklist incorporated the results of a prior systematic review and Delphi survey. Thirty-nine items, including all items from the prior systematic review, were proposed for inclusion in the GREET checklist. These 39 items were considered over a series of consensus discussions to determine the inclusion of items in the GREET checklist. The GREET checklist and explanatory paper were then developed and underwent psychometric testing with tertiary health professional students who evaluated the completeness of the reporting in a published study using the GREET checklist. For each GREET checklist item, consistency (%) of agreement both between participants and the consensus criterion reference measure were calculated. Criterion validity and inter-rater reliability were analysed using intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC).

          Results

          Three consensus discussions were undertaken, with 14 items identified for inclusion in the GREET checklist. Following further expert review by the Delphi panelists, three items were added and minor wording changes were completed, resulting in 17 checklist items. Psychometric testing for the updated GREET checklist was completed by 31 participants ( n = 11 undergraduate, n = 20 postgraduate). The consistency of agreement between the participant ratings for completeness of reporting with the consensus criterion ratings ranged from 19 % for item 4 Steps of EBP, to 94 % for item 16 Planned delivery. The overall consistency of agreement, for criterion validity (ICC 0.73) and inter-rater reliability (ICC 0.96), was good to almost perfect.

          Conclusion

          The final GREET checklist comprises 17 items which are recommended for reporting EBP educational interventions. Further validation of the GREET checklist with experts in EBP research and education is recommended.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12909-016-0759-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references19

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

          Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement.

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

            Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide.

            Without a complete published description of interventions, clinicians and patients cannot reliably implement interventions that are shown to be useful, and other researchers cannot replicate or build on research findings. The quality of description of interventions in publications, however, is remarkably poor. To improve the completeness of reporting, and ultimately the replicability, of interventions, an international group of experts and stakeholders developed the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. The process involved a literature review for relevant checklists and research, a Delphi survey of an international panel of experts to guide item selection, and a face to face panel meeting. The resultant 12 item TIDieR checklist (brief name, why, what (materials), what (procedure), who provided, how, where, when and how much, tailoring, modifications, how well (planned), how well (actual)) is an extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement (item 5) and the SPIRIT 2013 statement (item 11). While the emphasis of the checklist is on trials, the guidance is intended to apply across all evaluative study designs. This paper presents the TIDieR checklist and guide, with an explanation and elaboration for each item, and examples of good reporting. The TIDieR checklist and guide should improve the reporting of interventions and make it easier for authors to structure accounts of their interventions, reviewers and editors to assess the descriptions, and readers to use the information.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              What Are the Effects of Teaching Evidence-Based Health Care (EBHC)? Overview of Systematic Reviews

              Background An evidence-based approach to health care is recognized internationally as a key competency for healthcare practitioners. This overview systematically evaluated and organized evidence from systematic reviews on teaching evidence-based health care (EBHC). Methods/Findings We searched for systematic reviews evaluating interventions for teaching EBHC to health professionals compared to no intervention or different strategies. Outcomes covered EBHC knowledge, skills, attitudes, practices and health outcomes. Comprehensive searches were conducted in April 2013. Two reviewers independently selected eligible reviews, extracted data and evaluated methodological quality. We included 16 systematic reviews, published between 1993 and 2013. There was considerable overlap across reviews. We found that 171 source studies included in the reviews related to 81 separate studies, of which 37 are in more than one review. Studies used various methodologies to evaluate educational interventions of varying content, format and duration in undergraduates, interns, residents and practicing health professionals. The evidence in the reviews showed that multifaceted, clinically integrated interventions, with assessment, led to improvements in knowledge, skills and attitudes. Interventions improved critical appraisal skills and integration of results into decisions, and improved knowledge, skills, attitudes and behaviour amongst practicing health professionals. Considering single interventions, EBHC knowledge and attitude were similar for lecture-based versus online teaching. Journal clubs appeared to increase clinical epidemiology and biostatistics knowledge and reading behavior, but not appraisal skills. EBHC courses improved appraisal skills and knowledge. Amongst practicing health professionals, interactive online courses with guided critical appraisal showed significant increase in knowledge and appraisal skills. A short workshop using problem-based approaches, compared to no intervention, increased knowledge but not appraisal skills. Conclusions EBHC teaching and learning strategies should focus on implementing multifaceted, clinically integrated approaches with assessment. Future rigorous research should evaluate minimum components for multifaceted interventions, assessment of medium to long-term outcomes, and implementation of these interventions.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                anna.phillips@unisa.edu.au
                lucy.lewis@flinders.edu.au
                maureen.mcevoy@unisa.edu.au
                jgalipeau@ohri.ca
                Paul_Glasziou@bond.edu.au
                dmoher@ohri.ca
                tilson@usc.edu
                marie.williams@unisa.edu.au
                Journal
                BMC Med Educ
                BMC Med Educ
                BMC Medical Education
                BioMed Central (London )
                1472-6920
                6 September 2016
                6 September 2016
                2016
                : 16
                : 1
                : 237
                Affiliations
                [1 ]School of Health Sciences, University of South Australia, GPO box 2471, Adelaide, 5001 Australia
                [2 ]Sansom Institute for Health Research, Alliance for Research in Exercise, Nutrition and Activity (ARENA), University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia
                [3 ]Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, School of Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia
                [4 ]Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Centre for Practice-Changing Research (CPRC), The Ottawa Hospital, 501 Smyth Rd, Ottawa, ON K1H 8L6 Canada
                [5 ]Centre for Research in Evidence-Based Practice (CREBP), Bond University, University Drive, Robina, QLD 4226 Australia
                [6 ]Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Centre for Practice-Changing Research (CPCR), The Ottawa Hospital, 501 Smyth Rd, Ottawa, ON K1H 8L6 Canada
                [7 ]Division of Biokinesiology and Physical Therapy, University of Southern California, 1540 Alcazar St, CHP155, Los Angeles, 90089 USA
                Article
                759
                10.1186/s12909-016-0759-1
                5011880
                27599967
                c0200b41-c158-4213-84fc-4e0fcf2d67d8
                © The Author(s). 2016

                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
                : 4 June 2016
                : 25 August 2016
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2016

                Education
                evidence-based practice,education,reporting guideline,validation,research design
                Education
                evidence-based practice, education, reporting guideline, validation, research design

                Comments

                Comment on this article