Effectiveness of educational interventions for improving healthcare professionals' information literacy: A systematic review.

IF 2.2 4区医学 Q2 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE

Health Information and Libraries Journal Pub Date : 2025-02-02 DOI:10.1111/hir.12562

Mauricette Moling Lee, Xiaowen Lin, Eng Sing Lee, Helen Elizabeth Smith, Lorainne Tudor Car

{"title":"Effectiveness of educational interventions for improving healthcare professionals' information literacy: A systematic review.","authors":"Mauricette Moling Lee, Xiaowen Lin, Eng Sing Lee, Helen Elizabeth Smith, Lorainne Tudor Car","doi":"10.1111/hir.12562","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: It is unclear which educational interventions effectively improve healthcare professionals' information literacy.Objectives: We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of educational interventions for improving the formulation of answerable clinical questions and the search skills of healthcare professionals.Methods: We followed the Cochrane methodology and reported according to the PRISMA statement. The following databases from inception to November 2022: MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Google Scholar search engine, were searched. Randomised controlled trials and crossover trials on any educational interventions were included. Studies on search tools that are obsolete were excluded.Results: Ten studies that mainly compared the effectiveness of lectures and bedside education to lectures or no intervention for searching of PubMed and/or MEDLINE, were included. There was evidence for improved attitude towards the intervention favouring lecture with self-directed learning over lecture, bedside education, and computer-assisted self-directed learning (RR: 1.14; 95% CI 1.06-1.23; N = 2 studies; 1064 participants; I2 = 0%; moderate certainty evidence). There were limited findings on the knowledge, skills, satisfaction, and behaviour outcomes.Conclusion: Future research should include a wider set of outcomes, be reported better and explore the use of digital technology for delivery of educational interventions. Further research should entail well-designed trials with relevant outcomes evaluating novel digital-based educational interventions.","PeriodicalId":47580,"journal":{"name":"Health Information and Libraries Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Information and Libraries Journal","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/hir.12562","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: It is unclear which educational interventions effectively improve healthcare professionals' information literacy.

Objectives: We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of educational interventions for improving the formulation of answerable clinical questions and the search skills of healthcare professionals.

Methods: We followed the Cochrane methodology and reported according to the PRISMA statement. The following databases from inception to November 2022: MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Google Scholar search engine, were searched. Randomised controlled trials and crossover trials on any educational interventions were included. Studies on search tools that are obsolete were excluded.

Results: Ten studies that mainly compared the effectiveness of lectures and bedside education to lectures or no intervention for searching of PubMed and/or MEDLINE, were included. There was evidence for improved attitude towards the intervention favouring lecture with self-directed learning over lecture, bedside education, and computer-assisted self-directed learning (RR: 1.14; 95% CI 1.06-1.23; N = 2 studies; 1064 participants; I² = 0%; moderate certainty evidence). There were limited findings on the knowledge, skills, satisfaction, and behaviour outcomes.

Conclusion: Future research should include a wider set of outcomes, be reported better and explore the use of digital technology for delivery of educational interventions. Further research should entail well-designed trials with relevant outcomes evaluating novel digital-based educational interventions.

查看原文本刊更多论文

教育干预对提高医疗保健专业人员信息素养的有效性：一项系统综述。

背景：目前尚不清楚哪些教育干预措施能有效提高医护人员的信息素养。目的：我们的目的是评估教育干预措施的有效性，以改善可回答的临床问题的制定和医疗保健专业人员的搜索技能。方法：采用Cochrane方法学，按照PRISMA声明进行报道。检索了从成立到2022年11月的以下数据库：MEDLINE、Cochrane CENTRAL、EMBASE、Web of Science、CINAHL和谷歌Scholar搜索引擎。包括任何教育干预的随机对照试验和交叉试验。对过时的搜索工具的研究被排除在外。结果：纳入10项研究，主要比较讲座和床边教育与讲座或不干预的有效性，用于PubMed和/或MEDLINE的搜索。有证据表明，与讲座、床边教育和计算机辅助自主学习相比，授课式自主学习干预措施的态度有所改善(RR: 1.14；95% ci 1.06-1.23；N = 2项研究；1064名参与者;i2 = 0%；中等确定性证据)。关于知识、技能、满意度和行为结果的研究结果有限。结论：未来的研究应包括更广泛的结果，更好地报告，并探索使用数字技术提供教育干预措施。进一步的研究应该包括设计良好的试验和相关的结果，以评估新的基于数字的教育干预措施。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Health Information and Libraries Journal INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-

CiteScore

6.70

自引率

10.50%

发文量

期刊介绍： Health Information and Libraries Journal (HILJ) provides practitioners, researchers, and students in library and health professions an international and interdisciplinary forum. Its objectives are to encourage discussion and to disseminate developments at the frontiers of information management and libraries. A major focus is communicating practices that are evidence based both in managing information and in supporting health care. The Journal encompasses: - Identifying health information needs and uses - Managing programmes and services in the changing health environment - Information technology and applications in health - Educating and training health information professionals - Outreach to health user groups