Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32183798›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2020

A blended learning training programme for health information providers to enhance implementation of the Guideline Evidence-based Health Information: development and qualitative pilot study.

Jana Hinneburg, Julia Lühnen, Anke Steckelberg, Birte Berger-Höger

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2020. 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. Review
  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

4 authors.

Jana HinneburgInstitute for Health and Nursing Science, Medical Faculty, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Magdeburger Str. 8, 06112, Halle (Saale), Germany. jana.hinneburg@googlemail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7154-9418
Julia LühnenInstitute for Health and Nursing Science, Medical Faculty, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Magdeburger Str. 8, 06112, Halle (Saale), Germany.
Anke SteckelbergInstitute for Health and Nursing Science, Medical Faculty, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Magdeburger Str. 8, 06112, Halle (Saale), Germany.
Birte Berger-HögerInstitute for Health and Nursing Science, Medical Faculty, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Magdeburger Str. 8, 06112, Halle (Saale), Germany.

Funding

Innovationsfonds zur Förderung von Versorgungsforschung 01VSF17047
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Guideline Evidence-based Health Information was published in 2017 and addresses health information providers. The long-term goal of the guideline is to improve the quality of health information. Evidence-based health information represents a prerequisite for informed decision-making. Health information providers lack competences in evidence-based medicine. Therefore, our aim was to develop and pilot-test a blended learning training programme for health information providers to enhance application of the guideline.

methods1. DEVELOPMENT: We developed the training programme according to the Medical Research Council guidance for developing and evaluating complex interventions. The training programme was planned on the basis of problem-based learning. It aims to impart competences in evidence-based medicine. Furthermore, it comprises the application of criteria for evidence-based health information. 2.Pilot testing: We conducted a qualitative pilot study focusing on the acceptability and feasibility of the training programme. Health information providers were recruited and in-house training sessions were offered. Feasibility and acceptability were explored by structured class observations and in semi-structured focus group interviews with the participants after the training sessions. The transcripts and documentations were analysed using qualitative content analysis according to Mayring. The training was revised iteratively according to the results.

resultsWe conducted two training courses with 17 participants between November 2018 and March 2019. The adequacy of the training for the target group was identified as a major issue. There was significant heterogeneity concerning previous knowledge. Some wished to delve deeper while others seemed to be overwhelmed. In general, the work tasks were understandable. However, the participants asked for a more detailed theoretical introduction in advance. The practical relevance of the evidence-based medicine contents was rated rather low compared to the content about evidence-based health information. Based on these results, we revised the programme.

conclusionsOverall, the training proved to be feasible for implementation. Meeting the needs of all the participants was a challenge, since they were heterogeneous. Not all of them will be able or intend to implement the training contents into their working routine to the full extent. The implementation will be evaluated in a randomised controlled trial.

Indexed as

Evidence-Based MedicineAdultConsumer Health InformationDecision MakingFeasibility StudiesFemaleGermanyGoalsGuidelines as TopicHealth PersonnelHumansMaleMiddle AgedMotivationPilot ProjectsProgram EvaluationEvidence-based medicineGuideline adherenceGuideline implementationHealth informationTraining

Identifiers

PMID32183798
PMCPMC7079382

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.