ArticleJournal of medical education and curricular development
How to Evaluate Online Education for General Practitioners: Development of a Tailored Questionnaire for Heart Failure Education.
Article in Journal of medical education and curricular development. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review about the importance of neuropsychological features in heart failure: is at heart the only failure?Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2024Pooled it
- Implementing heart failure disease management in primary care: a mixed-methods analysis of the IMPACT-B study.BMJ open · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Physician-oriented online education could be a pathway to improve care for patients with heart failure, however, it is difficult to measure the impact of such education. Self-efficacy is a potential outcome measure. In this article, we develop a methodology for analyzing an educational intervention for general practitioners (GPs) using self-efficacy as a concept. This study was partly conducted within the setting of an observational study, IMPACT-B, where we developed online education for GPs. We designed and refined a 24-item questionnaire using item analysis, and exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Ninety-one GPs completed the questionnaire before and after the online education. Follow-up data after 6 months was available for 13 GPs. Item analysis revealed a high degree of internal consistency (coefficient alpha 0.95) and validity. Each additional year of experience was associated with an average baseline self-efficacy score of 0.50 points (95% CI [0.21-0.80]), and each additional patient in HF follow-up with an average score of 2.0 points (95% CI [0.48-3.5]). Items that differentiated most between GPs with high and low self-efficacy were the treatment of congestion as well as titrating medication and MRA in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Factor analysis reduced the number of questions to 14, mapping to three factors (diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up), and improved the model fit as measured by the goodness-of-fit indicator comparative-fit-index (from 0.83 to 0.91). We demonstrated a method to assess the impact of online education on general practitioners. This led to a questionnaire that was reliable, valid, and convenient to use in an implementation context.
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.