ArticleJournal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA2014
Evaluation of best practices in the design of online evidence-based practice instructional modules.
Article in Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Educational Application for Cardiac Anesthesiology Trainees: Tutorial on App Development.JMIR medical education · 2025Article
- Sustainable implementation of a frailty education program for formal health care providers.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Impact of embedded librarianship on undergraduate nursing students' information skills.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2021Article
- Physicians' attitude towards webinars and online education amid COVID-19 pandemic: When less is more.PloS one · 2021Article
- Environmental scan and evaluation of best practices for online systematic review resources.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2018Article
- Designing and Implementing Emergency Department Pain Management Curriculum: A Delphi Approach.AEM education and training · 2018Article
- Flipping one-shot library instruction: using Canvas and Pecha Kucha for peer teaching.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2016Article
- The design, fate and impact of a hospital-wide training program in evidence-based medicine for physicians - an observational study.BMC medical education · 2016Observational
- E-learning for Critical Thinking: Using Nominal Focus Group Method to Inform Software Content and Design.Nursing and midwifery studies · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe research determined to what extent best practices are being followed by freely available online modules aimed at teaching critical thinking and evidence-based practices (EBPs) in health sciences fields.
methodsIn phase I, an evaluation rubric was created after reviewing the literature. Individual rubric questions were assigned point values and grouped into sections, and the sections weighted. Phase II involved searching Internet platforms to locate online EBP modules, which were screened to determine if they met predetermined criteria for inclusion. Phase III comprised a first evaluation, in which two authors assessed each module, followed by a second evaluation of the top-scoring modules by five representatives from different health sciences units.
resultsThe rubric's 28 questions were categorized into 4 sections: content, design, interactivity, and usability. After retrieving 170 online modules and closely screening 91, 42 were in the first evaluation and 8 modules were in the second evaluation. Modules in the first evaluation earned, on average, 59% of available points; modules in the second earned an average of 68%. Both evaluations had a moderate level of inter-rater reliability.
conclusionsThe rubric was effective and reliable in evaluating the modules. Most modules followed best practices for content and usability but not for design and interactivity. IMPLICATIONS: By systematically collecting and evaluating instructional modules, the authors found many potentially useful elements for module creation. Also, by reviewing the limitations of the evaluated modules, the authors were able to anticipate and plan ways to overcome potential issues in module design.
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.