Trial reportBMC medical education2011
Evaluation of an online interactive Diabetes Needs Assessment Tool (DNAT) versus online self-directed learning: a randomised controlled trial.
Trial report in BMC medical education, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Health professions digital education on clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review by Digital Health Education collaboration.BMC medicine · 2019Pooled it
- Online Digital Education for Postregistration Training of Medical Doctors: Systematic Review by the Digital Health Education Collaboration.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Pooled it
- Digital Health Professions Education on Diabetes Management: Systematic Review by the Digital Health Education Collaboration.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Pooled it
- Oncology E-Learning for Undergraduate. A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2017Trial
- The development and evaluation of an online educational tool for the evidence-based management of neck pain by chiropractic teaching faculty.The Journal of chiropractic education · 2021Article
- How Do Clinicians Learn About Knowledge Translation? An Investigation of Current Web-Based Learning Opportunities.JMIR medical education · 2017Article
- Information and Communication Technologies for the Dissemination of Clinical Practice Guidelines to Health Professionals: A Systematic Review.JMIR medical education · 2016Review
- The Impact of E-Learning on Adherence to Guidelines for Acute Gastroenteritis: A Single-Arm Intervention Study.PloS one · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMethods for the dissemination, understanding and implementation of clinical guidelines need to be examined for their effectiveness to help doctors integrate guidelines into practice. The objective of this randomised controlled trial was to evaluate the effectiveness of an interactive online Diabetes Needs Assessment Tool (DNAT) (which constructs an e-learning curriculum based on individually identified knowledge gaps), compared with self-directed e-learning of diabetes guidelines.
methodsHealth professionals were randomised to a 4-month learning period and either given access to diabetes learning modules alone (control group) or DNAT plus learning modules (intervention group). Participants completed knowledge tests before and after learning (primary outcome), and surveys to assess the acceptability of the learning and changes to clinical practice (secondary outcomes).
resultsSixty four percent (677/1054) of participants completed both knowledge tests. The proportion of nurses (5.4%) was too small for meaningful analysis so they were excluded. For the 650 doctors completing both tests, mean (SD) knowledge scores increased from 47.4% (12.6) to 66.8% (11.5) [intervention group (n = 321, 64%)] and 47.3% (12.9) to 67.8% (10.8) [control group (n = 329, 66%)], (ANCOVA p = 0.186). Both groups were satisfied with the usability and usefulness of the learning materials. Seventy seven percent (218/284) of the intervention group reported combining the DNAT with the recommended reading materials was "very useful"/"useful". The majority in both groups (184/287, 64.1% intervention group and 206/299, 68.9% control group) [95% CI for the difference (-2.8 to 12.4)] reported integrating the learning into their clinical practice.
conclusionsBoth groups experienced a similar and significant improvement in knowledge. The learning materials were acceptable and participants incorporated the acquired knowledge into practice.
trial registrationISRCTN: ISRCTN67215088.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.