Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32600404›Full record

SynthesisBMC health services research2020

Systematic review of the effect of training interventions on the skills of health professionals in promoting health behaviour, with meta-analysis of subsequent effects on patient health behaviours.

Thomas G Hatfield, Thomas M Withers, Colin J Greaves

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC health services research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  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

3 authors.

Thomas G HatfieldSchool of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.
Thomas M WithersSchool of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK. t.m.withers@bham.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5286-7189
Colin J GreavesSchool of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe aimed to identify, synthesise and evaluate randomised control trial evidence on the effects of healthcare professional training on the delivery quality of health behaviour change interventions and, subsequently, on patient health behaviours.

methodsSystematic review with narrative synthesis of effects on delivery quality and meta-analysis of health behaviour outcomes. We searched: Medline, EMBASE, PsychInfo, AMED, CINAHL Plus and the Cochrane Central Register of Control Trials up to March 2019. Studies were included if they were in English and included intervention delivery quality as an outcome. The systematic review was registered on PROSPERO (registration: CRD42019124502).

resultsTwelve-studies were identified as suitable for inclusion. All studies were judged as being high risk of bias with respect to training quality outcomes. However with respect to behavioural outcomes, only two of the six studies included in the meta-analysis had a high risk and four had some concerns. Educational elements (e.g. presentations) were used in all studies and nine included additional practical learning tasks. In eight studies reporting delivery quality, 54% of healthcare professional communication outcomes and 55% of content delivery outcomes improved in the intervention arm compared to controls. Training that included both educational and practical elements tended to be more effective. Meta-analysis of patient health behavioural outcomes in six-studies found significant improvements (Standardised mean difference (SMD): 0.20, 95% confidence interval: 0.11 to 0.28, P < 0.0001, I

conclusionsDelivery quality of health behaviour change interventions appears to improve following training and consequently to improve health behaviours. Future studies should develop more concise /integrated measures of delivery quality and develop optimal methods of training delivery.

Indexed as

Health PromotionClinical CompetenceHealth BehaviorHealth PersonnelHealth Services ResearchHumansPatientsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicDelivery qualityHealthcare professionalTraining

Identifiers

PMID32600404
PMCPMC7325030

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.