Dataset Information

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

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.

SUBMITTER: Richmond H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5701457 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Richmond Helen H Copsey Bethan B Hall Amanda M AM Davies David D Lamb Sarah E SE

BMC medical education 20171123 1

<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Methods</h4>Seven databas ...[more]

PMID: 29169393

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDespite the central role of mixed methods in health research, studies evaluating online methods training in the health sciences are nonexistent. The focused goal was to evaluate online training by comparing the self-rated skills of scholars who experienced an in-person retreat to scholars in an online retreat in specific domains of mixed methods research for the health sciences from 2015-2023.MethodsThe authors administered a scholar Mixed Methods Skills Self-Assessment instrument based on an educational competency scale that included domains on: "research questions," "design/approach," "sampling," "analysis," and "dissemination" to participants of the Mixed Methods Research Training Program for the Health Sciences (MMRTP). Self-ratings on confidence on domains were compared before and after retreat participation within cohorts who attended in person (n = 73) or online (n = 57) as well as comparing across in-person to online cohorts. Responses to open-ended questions about experiences with the retreat were analyzed.ResultsScholars in an interactive program to improve mixed methods skills reported significantly increased confidence in ability to define or explain concepts and in ability to apply the concepts to practical problems, whether the program was attended in-person or synchronously online. Scholars in the online retreat had self-rated skill improvements as good or better than scholars who participated in person. With the possible exception of networking, scholars found the online format was associated with advantages such as accessibility and reduced burden of travel and finding childcare. No differences in difficulty of learning concepts was described.ConclusionsKeeping in mind that the retreat is only one component of the MMRTP, this study provides evidence that mixed methods training online was associated with the same increases in self-rated skills as persons attending online and can be a key component to increasing the capacity for mixed methods research in the health sciences.

Project description:IntroductionEmergency workers dedicate their lives to promoting public health and safety, yet suffer higher rates of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and major depression (MD) compared with the general population. They also suffer an associated increased risk for physical health problems, which may be linked to specific immunological and endocrine markers or changes in relevant markers. Poor physical and mental health is costly to organisations, the National Health Service and society. Existing interventions aimed at reducing risk of mental ill health in this population are not very successful. More effective preventative interventions are urgently needed. We first conducted a large-scale prospective study of newly recruited student paramedics, identifying two cognitive factors (rumination and resilience appraisals) that predicted episodes of PTSD and MD over a 2-year period. We then developed internet-delivered cognitive training for resilience (iCT-R), a supported online intervention, to modify cognitive predictors. This protocol is for a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy of the resilience intervention.Methods and analysis570 student paramedics will be recruited from participating universities. They will be randomly allocated to iCT-R or to supported online training of an alternative, widely available intervention or to training-as-usual. Follow-up will occur after the intervention/standard practice period and at 6, 12 and 24 months. Primary outcomes include rates of PTSD and MD and subsydnromal PTSD and MD, measured by the Structured Clinical Interview for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition, the Patient-Health Questionnaire-9 and the Post-traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition. Secondary outcomes include measures of resilience, rumination, anxiety, psychological distress, well-being, salivary cortisol, plasma levels of C-reactive protein, smoking and alcohol use, weight gain, sleep problems, health-related quality of life, health resource utilisation and productivity.Ethics and disseminationThe Medical Sciences Inter-Divisional Research Ethics Committee at the University of Oxford granted approval, reference: R44116/RE001. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Access to raw data and participant information will be available only to members of the research team.Trial registration numberISRCTN16493616; Pre-results.

Project description:IntroductionMental disorders such as depression are common, and an estimated 264 million people are affected by them throughout the world. In recent years, studies on digital health interventions to treat mental disorders have shown evidence of their efficacy, and interest in using them has increased as a result. In the primary care setting, depression and anxiety are the two most frequently diagnosed and treated mental disorders. When they do not refer them to specialists, primary care professionals such as general practitioners treat patients with mental disorders themselves but have insufficient time to treat them adequately. Furthermore, there is a shortage of psychotherapists and those that exist have long waiting lists for an appointment. The purpose of this mixed methods systematic review is to explore the attitudes of primary care professionals towards the use of digital health interventions in the treatment of patients with mental disorders. Their attitudes will provide an indication whether digital mental health interventions can effectively complement standard care in the primary care setting.Methods and analysisWe searched for qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies published in English, German, Spanish, Russian, French and Dutch after January 2010 for inclusion in the review. The included studies must involve digital mental health interventions conducted via computer and/or mobile devices in the primary care setting. The search was conducted in July 2020 in the following electronic bibliographic databases: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Web of Science Core Collection. Two reviewers will independently screen titles, abstracts and full texts and extract data. We will use the 'Integrated methodology' framework to combine both quantitative and qualitative data.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required. We will disseminate the results of the mixed methods systematic review in a peer-reviewed journal and scientific conferences.Prospero registration numberCRD42020188879.

Dataset Information

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

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets