Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29483071›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical education2018

Evaluating the Effect of a Web-Based E-Learning Tool for Health Professional Education on Clinical Vancomycin Use: Comparative Study.

Stuart Evan Bond, Shelley P Crowther, Suman Adhikari, Adriana J Chubaty, Ping Yu, Jay P Borchard, Craig Steven Boutlis, Wilfred Winston Yeo, Spiros Miyakis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical education, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Awareness, perception, and barriers of healthcare providers toward the revised consensus guideline for therapeutic monitoring of vancomycin.Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society · 2023
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

9 authors.

Stuart Evan BondDepartment of Pharmacy, Wollongong Hospital, Illawarra Shoalhaven Local Health District, Wollongong, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9640-2474
Shelley P CrowtherDepartment of Pharmacy, Wollongong Hospital, Illawarra Shoalhaven Local Health District, Wollongong, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4259-3484
Suman AdhikariDepartment of Pharmacy, St George Hospital, South Eastern Sydney Local Health District, Kogarah, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5454-4300
Adriana J ChubatyDepartment of Pharmacy, Prince of Wales Hospital, South Eastern Sydney Local Health District, Randwick, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4905-1269
Ping YuSchool of Computing and Information Technology, Faculty of Engineering and Information Sciences, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7910-9396
Jay P BorchardResearch Central, Wollongong Hospital, Illawarra Shoalhaven Local Health District, Wollongong, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3651-898X
Craig Steven BoutlisDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Wollongong Hospital, Illawarra Shoalhaven Local Health District, Wollongong, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4754-0501
Wilfred Winston YeoSchool of Medicine, Faculty of Science, Medicine and Health, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9554-5203
Spiros MiyakisSchool of Medicine, Faculty of Science, Medicine and Health, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4268-1599

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInternet-based learning for health professional education is increasing. It offers advantages over traditional learning approaches, as it enables learning to be completed at a time convenient to the user and improves access where facilities are geographically disparate. We developed and implemented the Vancomycin Interactive (VI) e-learning tool to improve knowledge on the clinical use of the antibiotic vancomycin, which is commonly used for treatment of infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA).

objectiveThe aims of this study were to evaluate the effect of the VI e-learning tool on (1) survey knowledge scores and (2) clinical use of vancomycin among health professionals.

methodsWe conducted a comparative pre-post intervention study across the 14 hospitals of two health districts in New South Wales, Australia. A knowledge survey was completed by nurses, doctors, and pharmacists before and after release of a Web-based e-learning tool. Survey scores were compared with those obtained following traditional education in the form of an email intervention. Survey questions related to dosing, administration, and monitoring of vancomycin. Outcome measures were survey knowledge scores among the three health professional groups, vancomycin plasma trough levels, and vancomycin approvals recorded on a computerized clinical decision support system.

resultsSurvey response rates were low at 26.87% (577/2147) preintervention and 8.24% (177/2147) postintervention. The VI was associated with an increase in knowledge scores (maximum score=5) among nurses (median 2, IQR 1-2 to median 2, IQR 1-3; P<.001), but not among other professional groups. The comparator email intervention was associated with an increase in knowledge scores among doctors (median 3, IQR 2-4 to median 4, IQR 2-4; P=.04). Participants who referred to Web-based resources while completing the e-learning tool achieved higher overall scores than those who did not (P<.001). The e-learning tool was not shown to be significantly more effective than the comparator email in the clinical use of vancomycin, as measured by plasma levels within the therapeutic range.

conclusionsThe e-learning tool was associated with improved knowledge scores among nurses, whereas the comparator email was associated with improved scores among doctors. This implies that different strategies may be required for optimizing the effectiveness of education among different health professional groups. Low survey response rates limited conclusions regarding the tool's effectiveness. Improvements to design and evaluation methodology may increase the likelihood of a demonstrable effect from e-learning tools in the future.

Indexed as

antibacterial agentscontinuing educationmedical educationnursing educationpharmacy educationsurvey methods

Identifiers

PMID29483071
PMCPMC5847818

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.