Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27903488›Full record

ReviewJMIR medical education2016

Information and Communication Technologies for the Dissemination of Clinical Practice Guidelines to Health Professionals: A Systematic Review.

Gino De Angelis, Barbara Davies, Judy King, Jessica McEwan, Sabrina Cavallo, Laurianne Loew, George A Wells, Lucie Brosseau

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JMIR medical education, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

8 authors.

Gino De AngelisSchool of Rehabilitation Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2099-9870
Barbara DaviesSchool of Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4747-9982
Judy KingSchool of Rehabilitation Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4530-9987
Jessica McEwanTelfer School of Management, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4802-6539
Sabrina CavalloSchool of Rehabilitation Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0484-1205
Laurianne LoewSchool of Rehabilitation Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7059-8859
George A WellsSchool of Epidemiology, Public Health and Preventive Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2289-9139
Lucie BrosseauSchool of Rehabilitation Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9587-7504

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe transfer of research knowledge into clinical practice can be a continuous challenge for researchers. Information and communication technologies, such as websites and email, have emerged as popular tools for the dissemination of evidence to health professionals.

objectiveThe objective of this systematic review was to identify research on health professionals' perceived usability and practice behavior change of information and communication technologies for the dissemination of clinical practice guidelines.

methodsWe used a systematic approach to retrieve and extract data about relevant studies. We identified 2248 citations, of which 21 studies met criteria for inclusion; 20 studies were randomized controlled trials, and 1 was a controlled clinical trial. The following information and communication technologies were evaluated: websites (5 studies), computer software (3 studies), Web-based workshops (2 studies), computerized decision support systems (2 studies), electronic educational game (1 study), email (2 studies), and multifaceted interventions that consisted of at least one information and communication technology component (6 studies).

resultsWebsite studies demonstrated significant improvements in perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use, but not for knowledge, reducing barriers, and intention to use clinical practice guidelines. Computer software studies demonstrated significant improvements in perceived usefulness, but not for knowledge and skills. Web-based workshop and email studies demonstrated significant improvements in knowledge, perceived usefulness, and skills. An electronic educational game intervention demonstrated a significant improvement from baseline in knowledge after 12 and 24 weeks. Computerized decision support system studies demonstrated variable findings for improvement in skills. Multifaceted interventions demonstrated significant improvements in beliefs about capabilities, perceived usefulness, and intention to use clinical practice guidelines, but variable findings for improvements in skills. Most multifaceted studies demonstrated significant improvements in knowledge.

conclusionsThe findings suggest that health professionals' perceived usability and practice behavior change vary by type of information and communication technology. Heterogeneity and the paucity of properly conducted studies did not allow for a clear comparison between studies and a conclusion on the effectiveness of information and communication technologies as a knowledge translation strategy for the dissemination of clinical practice guidelines.

Indexed as

electronic mailemailhealth information technologieshealth professionsinformation disseminationpractice guidelinesWeb 2.0

Identifiers

PMID27903488
PMCPMC5156823

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.