Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20464753›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2010

Interventions to improve question formulation in professional practice and self-directed learning.

Tanya Horsley, Jennifer O'Neill, Jessie McGowan, Laure Perrier, Gabrielle Kane, Craig Campbell

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. A characterization of clinical questions asked by rehabilitation therapists.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2014
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Tanya HorsleyCentre for Learning in Practice, Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, 774 Echo Drive, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1S5N8.
Jennifer O'Neill
Jessie McGowan
Laure Perrier
Gabrielle Kane
Craig Campbell

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFormulating questions is fundamental to the daily life of a healthcare worker and is a defining characteristic of professional competence and meaningful learning. With high expectations for healthcare providers to remain up-to-date with current evidence and the movement towards formalizing reflective practice as part of physician revalidation, it is important that curricula developed for improving the ability to formulate well-constructed questions are based on the best evidence.

objectivesTo assess the effectiveness of interventions for increasing the frequency and quality of questions formulated by healthcare providers in practice and the context of self-directed learning. SEARCH STRATEGY: We obtained studies from searches of electronic bibliographic databases, and supplemented these with handsearching, checking reference lists, and consultation with experts. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered published and unpublished randomized controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs), interrupted time-series (ITS), and controlled before-after (CBA) studies of any language examining interventions for increasing the quality and frequency of questions formulated by health professionals involved with direct patient care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently undertook all relevancy screening and 'Risk of bias' assessment in duplicate. Intervention characteristics, follow-up intervals, and measurement outcomes were diverse and precluded quantitative analysis. We have summarized data descriptively. MAIN

resultsSearches identified four studies examining interventions to improve question formulation in healthcare professionals. Interventions were mostly multi-component, limited within the context of EBM and primarily in physician and resident populations. We did not identify studies examining changes in frequency of questions formulated or those within the context of reflection. Risk of bias was generally rated to be 'high risk'. Three of the four studies showed improvements in question formulation in physicians, residents, or mixed allied health populations in the short- to moderate term follow up. Only one study examined sustainability of effects at one year and reported that skills had eroded over time. AUTHORS'

conclusionsEvidence from our review suggests that interventions to increase the quality of questions formulated in practice produce mixed results at both short- (immediately following intervention), and moderate-term follow up (up to nine months), comparatively. Although three studies reported effectiveness estimates of an educational intervention for increasing the quality of question formulation within the short term, only one study examined the effectiveness in the longer term (one year) and revealed that search skills had eroded over time. Data suggests that sustainability of effects from educational interventions for question formulation are unknown.

Indexed as

Professional PracticeClinical CompetenceEducation, ContinuingEvidence-Based MedicineHealth PersonnelHumansProblem-Based LearningRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID20464753
PMCPMC13290143

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.