Dataset Information

A systematic review of how studies describe educational interventions for evidence-based practice: stage 1 of the development of a reporting guideline.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The aim of this systematic review was to identify which information is included when reporting educational interventions used to facilitate foundational skills and knowledge of evidence-based practice (EBP) training for health professionals. This systematic review comprised the first stage in the three stage development process for a reporting guideline for educational interventions for EBP. METHODS: The review question was 'What information has been reported when describing educational interventions targeting foundational evidence-based practice knowledge and skills?'MEDLINE, Academic Search Premier, ERIC, CINAHL, Scopus, Embase, Informit health, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases were searched from inception until October - December 2011. Randomised and non-randomised controlled trials reporting original data on educational interventions specific to developing foundational knowledge and skills of evidence-based practice were included.Studies were not appraised for methodological bias, however, reporting frequency and item commonality were compared between a random selection of studies included in the systematic review and a random selection of studies excluded as they were not controlled trials. Twenty-five data items were extracted by two independent reviewers (consistency > 90%). RESULTS: Sixty-one studies met the inclusion criteria (n = 29 randomised, n = 32 non-randomised). The most consistently reported items were the learner's stage of training, professional discipline and the evaluation methods used (100%). The least consistently reported items were the instructor(s) previous teaching experience (n = 8, 13%), and student effort outside face to face contact (n = 1, 2%). CONCLUSION: This systematic review demonstrates inconsistencies in describing educational interventions for EBP in randomised and non-randomised trials. To enable educational interventions to be replicable and comparable, improvements in the reporting for educational interventions for EBP are required. In the absence of a specific reporting guideline, there are a range of items which are reported with variable frequency. Identifying the important items for describing educational interventions for facilitating foundational knowledge and skills in EBP remains to be determined. The findings of this systematic review will be used to inform the next stage in the development of a reporting guideline for educational interventions for EBP.

SUBMITTER: Phillips AC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4113129 | biostudies-other | 2014

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A systematic review of how studies describe educational interventions for evidence-based practice: stage 1 of the development of a reporting guideline.

Phillips Anna C AC Lewis Lucy K LK McEvoy Maureen P MP Galipeau James J Glasziou Paul P Hammick Marilyn M Moher David D Tilson Julie K JK Williams Marie T MT

BMC medical education 20140724

<h4>Background</h4>The aim of this systematic review was to identify which information is included when reporting educational interventions used to facilitate foundational skills and knowledge of evidence-based practice (EBP) training for health professionals. This systematic review comprised the first stage in the three stage development process for a reporting guideline for educational interventions for EBP.<h4>Methods</h4>The review question was 'What information has been reported when descri ...[more]

PMID: 25060160

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDespite the established interest in evidence-based practice (EBP) as a core competence for clinicians, evidence for how best to teach and evaluate EBP remains weak. We sought to systematically assess coverage of the five EBP steps, review the outcome domains measured, and assess the properties of the instruments used in studies evaluating EBP educational interventions.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of controlled studies (i.e. studies with a separate control group) which had investigated the effect of EBP educational interventions. We used citation analysis technique and tracked the forward and backward citations of the index articles (i.e. the systematic reviews and primary studies included in an overview of the effect of EBP teaching) using Web of Science until May 2017. We extracted information on intervention content (grouped into the five EBP steps), and the outcome domains assessed. We also searched the literature for published reliability and validity data of the EBP instruments used.ResultsOf 1831 records identified, 302 full-text articles were screened, and 85 included. Of these, 46 (54%) studies were randomised trials, 51 (60%) included postgraduate level participants, and 63 (75%) taught medical professionals. EBP Step 3 (critical appraisal) was the most frequently taught step (63 studies; 74%). Only 10 (12%) of the studies taught content which addressed all five EBP steps. Of the 85 studies, 52 (61%) evaluated EBP skills, 39 (46%) knowledge, 35 (41%) attitudes, 19 (22%) behaviours, 15 (18%) self-efficacy, and 7 (8%) measured reactions to EBP teaching delivery. Of the 24 instruments used in the included studies, 6 were high-quality (achieved ≥3 types of established validity evidence) and these were used in 14 (29%) of the 52 studies that measured EBP skills; 14 (41%) of the 39 studies that measured EBP knowledge; and 8 (26%) of the 35 studies that measured EBP attitude.ConclusionsMost EBP educational interventions which have been evaluated in controlled studies focus on teaching only some of the EBP steps (predominantly critically appraisal of evidence) and did not use high-quality instruments to measure outcomes. Educational packages and instruments which address all EBP steps are needed to improve EBP teaching.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:We systematically analysed recommendations from gout guidelines as an example, to provide a basis for developing a reporting standard of recommendations in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). DESIGN:Systematic review without meta-analysis. METHODS:We systematically searched MEDLINE and all relevant guideline websites (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, National Guideline Clearinghouse, Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, WHO, Guidelines International Network, DynaMed, UpTodate, Best Practice) from their inception to January 2017 to identify and select gout CPGs. We used search terms such as 'gout', 'hyperuricemia' and 'guideline'. We included the eligible CPGs of gout according to the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria after screening titles, abstracts and full texts. The characteristics of recommendations reported in the included guidelines were extracted and analysed. RESULTS:A total of 15 gout guidelines with a range of 5-80 recommendations were retrieved. Several indicators were used in the gout guidelines to facilitate identification of recommendations, including grouping all recommendations in a summary section, formatting recommendations in a particular or special way, using locating words for recommendations and indicating the strength of recommendation and quality of evidence. We found some components commonly used in the recommendations. The wording of recommendations varied across guidelines. Recommendations were detailed and explained in the section of rationale and explanation of recommendations. In some guidelines, recommendations were accompanied with other material to assist their reporting. CONCLUSIONS:Variability and inconsistency were found on the reporting and presentation of recommendations in gout guidelines. Several points for reporting recommendation can be summarised. First, we suggested summarising and highlighting the core recommendations in a guideline. Second, guideline developers should try to structure and write recommendations reasonably. Third, it was necessary to detail and explain the recommendations and their rationale. Finally, describing and providing other potential useful contents was also a helpful way for clear reporting.

Project description:PurposeThe aim of this systematic review was to find best teaching strategies for teaching evidence-based practice (EBP) to undergraduate health students that have been adopted over the last years in healthcare institutions worldwide.MethodsThe authors carried out a systematic, comprehensive bibliographic search using Medline database for the years 2005 to March 2015 (updated in March 2016). Search terms used were chosen from the USNLM Institutes of Health list of MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) and free text key terms were used as well. Selected articles were measured based on the inclusion criteria of this study and initially compared in terms of titles or abstracts. Finally, articles relevant to the subject of this review were retrieved in full text. Critical appraisal was done to determine the effects of strategy of teaching evidence-based medicine (EBM).ResultsTwenty articles were included in the review. The majority of the studies sampled medical students (n=13) and only few conducted among nursing (n=2), pharmacy (n=2), physiotherapy/therapy (n=1), dentistry (n=1), or mixed disciplines (n=1) students. Studies evaluated a variety of educational interventions of varying duration, frequency and format (lectures, tutorials, workshops, conferences, journal clubs, and online sessions), or combination of these to teach EBP. We categorized interventions into single interventions covering a workshop, conference, lecture, journal club, or e-learning and multifaceted interventions where a combination of strategies had been assessed. Seven studies reported an overall increase to all EBP domains indicating a higher EBP competence and two studies focused on the searching databases skill.ConclusionFollowings were deduced from above analysis: multifaceted approach may be best suited when teaching EBM to health students; the use of technology to promote EBP through mobile devices, simulation, and the web is on the rise; and the duration of the interventions varying form some hours to even months was not related to the students' EBP competence.

Project description:BackgroundThe implementation of evidence-based practice (EBP) in daily health care practice is strongly encouraged; it is widely recognized as a means to improve the quality and safety of health care for patients and reduce avoidable costs. Primary care nurses and physiotherapists face numerous challenges in trying to ensure that they deliver effective daily care. Broadly promoted educational interventions aim to increase the integration and implementation of EBP in their daily practice.ObjectiveThis systematic review will retrieve and evaluate publications examining the effectiveness of educational interventions to increase the integration and implementation of EBP among nurses, nurse practitioners, and physiotherapists active in primary care.MethodsWe will conduct a systematic review of published articles in relevant professional, scientific journals (from their start dates) and in the following electronic databases, from inception until October 31, 2020: Medline Ovid SP (from 1946), PubMed (NOT Medline[sb]; from 1996), Embase.com (from 1947), CINAHL Ebesco (from 1937), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials Wiley (from 1992), PsycINFO Ovid SP (from 1806), Web of Science Core collection (from 1900), PEDro (from 1999), the JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports (from 1998), and the Trip Database (from 1997). We will use the predefined search terms of "evidence-based practice," "nurses," or "physiotherapists" and combinations with other terms, such as "educational interventions." We will also conduct a hand search of the bibliographies of all the relevant articles and a search for unpublished studies using Google Scholar, the ProQuest Dissertations and Theses dissemination, Mednar, WorldCat, OpenGrey, and Grey Literature Report. We will consider publications in English, French, German, and Portuguese.ResultsThe electronic database searches were completed in October 2020. Retrieved articles are currently being screened, and the entire study is expected to be completed by March 2021.ConclusionsThis systematic review will provide specific knowledge about the effectiveness of educational interventions to increase the implementation and integration of EBP in the daily practice of nurses and physiotherapists providing primary care services. Its findings will inform us about the types and frequencies of the most successful educational interventions.Trial registrationPROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42017077309; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=77309.International registered report identifier (irrid)DERR1-10.2196/17621.

Project description:BackgroundLarge sample sizes are often required to detect statistically significant associations between pharmacogenetic markers and treatment response. Meta-analysis may be performed to synthesize data from several studies, increasing sample size and, consequently, power to detect significant genetic effects. However, performing robust synthesis of data from pharmacogenetic studies is often challenging because of poor reporting of key data in study reports. There is currently no guideline for the reporting of pharmacogenetic studies that has been developed using a widely accepted robust methodology. The objective of this project was to develop the STrengthening the Reporting Of Pharmacogenetic Studies (STROPS) guideline.Methods and findingsWe established a preliminary checklist of reporting items to be considered for inclusion in the guideline. We invited representatives of key stakeholder groups to participate in a 2-round Delphi survey. A total of 52 individuals participated in both rounds of the survey, scoring items with regards to their importance for inclusion in the STROPS guideline. We then held a consensus meeting, at which 8 individuals considered the results of the Delphi survey and voted on whether each item ought to be included in the final guideline. The STROPS guideline consists of 54 items and is accompanied by an explanation and elaboration document. The guideline contains items that are particularly important in the field of pharmacogenetics, such as the drug regimen of interest and whether adherence to treatment was accounted for in the conducted analyses. The guideline also requires that outcomes be clearly defined and justified, because in pharmacogenetic studies, there may be a greater number of possible outcomes than in other types of study (for example, disease-gene association studies). A limitation of this project is that our consensus meeting involved a small number of individuals, the majority of whom are based in the United Kingdom.ConclusionsOur aim is for the STROPS guideline to improve the transparency of reporting of pharmacogenetic studies and also to facilitate the conduct of high-quality systematic reviews and meta-analyses. We encourage authors to adhere to the STROPS guideline when publishing pharmacogenetic studies.

Project description:IntroductionLarge sample sizes are often required to detect statistically significant associations between pharmacogenetic markers and treatment response. Meta-analysis may be performed to synthesise data from several studies, increasing sample size and consequently power to detect significant genetic effects. However, performing robust synthesis of data from pharmacogenetic studies is often challenging due to poor reporting of key data in study reports. There is currently no guideline for the reporting of pharmacogenetic studies. The aim of this project is to develop the STrengthening the Reporting Of Pharmacogenetic Studies (STROPS) guideline. The STROPS guideline will facilitate the conduct of high-quality meta-analyses and thus improve the power to detect genetic associations.Methods and analysisWe will establish a preliminary checklist of reporting items to be considered for inclusion in the guideline. We will then conduct a Delphi survey of key stakeholder groups to gain consensus opinion on which reporting items to include in the final guideline. The Delphi survey will consist of two rounds: the first round will invite participants to score items from the preliminary checklist and to suggest additional relevant items; the second round will provide feedback from the previous round and invite participants to re-score the items. Following the second round, we will summarise the distribution of scores for each item, stratified by stakeholder group. The Steering Committee for the project and representatives from the key stakeholder groups will meet to consider the results of the Delphi survey and to finalise the list of reporting items. We will then draft, pilot-test and publish the STROPS reporting guideline and accompanying explanatory document.Ethics and disseminationThe University of Liverpool Ethics Committee has confirmed ethical approval for this study (reference: 3586). Dissemination activities will include presenting the reporting guideline at conferences relevant to pharmacogenetic research.

Dataset Information

A systematic review of how studies describe educational interventions for evidence-based practice: stage 1 of the development of a reporting guideline.

Publications

A systematic review of how studies describe educational interventions for evidence-based practice: stage 1 of the development of a reporting guideline.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets