Back to Search
Start Over
A systematic review and meta-analysis of online versus alternative methods for training licensed health care professionals to deliver clinical interventions
- Source :
- BMC Medical Education, BMC Medical Education, Vol 17, Iss 1, Pp 1-14 (2017)
- Publication Year :
- 2017
- Publisher :
- BioMed Central, 2017.
-
Abstract
- Background Online training is growing in popularity and yet its effectiveness for training licensed health professionals (HCPs) in clinical interventions is not clear. We aimed to systematically review the literature on the effectiveness of online versus alternative training methods in clinical interventions for licensed Health Care Professionals (HCPs) on outcomes of knowledge acquisition, practical skills, clinical behaviour, self-efficacy and satisfaction. Methods Seven databases were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from January 2000 to June 2015. Two independent reviewers rated trial quality and extracted trial data. Comparative effects were summarised as standardised mean differences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals. Pooled effect sizes were calculated using a random-effects model for three contrasts of online versus (i) interactive workshops (ii) taught lectures and (iii) written/electronic manuals. Results We included 14 studies with a total of 1089 participants. Most trials studied medical professionals, used a workshop or lecture comparison, were of high risk of bias and had small sample sizes (range 21-183). Using the GRADE approach, we found low quality evidence that there was no difference between online training and an interactive workshop for clinical behaviour SMD 0.12 (95% CI -0.13 to 0.37). We found very low quality evidence of no difference between online methods and both a workshop and lecture for knowledge (workshop: SMD 0.04 (95% CI -0.28 to 0.36); lecture: SMD 0.22 (95% CI: -0.08, 0.51)). Lastly, compared to a manual (n = 3/14), we found very low quality evidence that online methods were superior for knowledge SMD 0.99 (95% CI 0.02 to 1.96). There were too few studies to draw any conclusions on the effects of online training for practical skills, self-efficacy, and satisfaction across all contrasts. Conclusions It is likely that online methods may be as effective as alternative methods for training HCPs in clinical interventions for the outcomes of knowledge and clinical behaviour. However, the low quality of the evidence precludes drawing firm conclusions on the relative effectiveness of these training methods. Moreover, the confidence intervals around our effect sizes were large and could encompass important differences in effectiveness. More robust, adequately powered RCTs are needed. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12909-017-1047-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
- Subjects :
- 020205 medical informatics
Alternative medicine
Psychological intervention
lcsh:Medicine
02 engineering and technology
E-learning
0302 clinical medicine
Clinical Protocols
Health care
Outcome Assessment, Health Care
0202 electrical engineering, electronic engineering, information engineering
030212 general & internal medicine
media_common
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
lcsh:LC8-6691
Attitude to Computers
Professional development
General Medicine
Self Efficacy
Meta-analysis
Research Article
medicine.medical_specialty
media_common.quotation_subject
Health Personnel
education
Education
03 medical and health sciences
Online training/learning
medicine
Training
Humans
Quality (business)
Medical education
lcsh:Special aspects of education
business.industry
lcsh:R
Internship and Residency
Knowledge acquisition
Confidence interval
Education, Medical, Graduate
Family medicine
Systematic review
Health professionals
business
Continuing education
Delivery of Health Care
Licensure
Internet based training/learning
Computer-Assisted Instruction
Subjects
Details
- Language :
- English
- ISSN :
- 14726920
- Volume :
- 17
- Database :
- OpenAIRE
- Journal :
- BMC Medical Education
- Accession number :
- edsair.doi.dedup.....1d53f52daf8584e77c5d5bfec0a744ba