Determinants of knowledge gain in evidence-based medicine short courses: an international assessment.

Regina Kunz, Karl Wegscheider, Lutz Fritsche, Holger J Schünemann, Virginia Moyer, Donald Miller, Nicole Boluyt, Yngve Falck-Ytter, Peter Griffiths, Heiner C Bucher, Antje Timmer, Jana Meyerrose, Klaus Witt, Martin Dawes, Trisha Greenhalgh, Gordon H Guyatt
{"title":"Determinants of knowledge gain in evidence-based medicine short courses: an international assessment.","authors":"Regina Kunz,&nbsp;Karl Wegscheider,&nbsp;Lutz Fritsche,&nbsp;Holger J Schünemann,&nbsp;Virginia Moyer,&nbsp;Donald Miller,&nbsp;Nicole Boluyt,&nbsp;Yngve Falck-Ytter,&nbsp;Peter Griffiths,&nbsp;Heiner C Bucher,&nbsp;Antje Timmer,&nbsp;Jana Meyerrose,&nbsp;Klaus Witt,&nbsp;Martin Dawes,&nbsp;Trisha Greenhalgh,&nbsp;Gordon H Guyatt","doi":"10.2174/1874104501004010003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Health care professionals worldwide attend courses and workshops to learn evidence-based medicine (EBM), but evidence regarding the impact of these educational interventions is conflicting and of low methodologic quality and lacks generalizability. Furthermore, little is known about determinants of success. We sought to measure the effect of EBM short courses and workshops on knowledge and to identify course and learner characteristics associated with knowledge acquisition.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Health care professionals with varying expertise in EBM participated in an international, multicentre before-after study. The intervention consisted of short courses and workshops on EBM offered in diverse settings, formats and intensities. The primary outcome measure was the score on the Berlin Questionnaire, a validated instrument measuring EBM knowledge that the participants completed before and after the course.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 15 centres participated in the study and 420 learners from North America and Europe completed the study. The baseline score across courses was 7.49 points (range 3.97-10.42 points) out of a possible 15 points. The average increase in score was 1.40 points (95% confidence interval 0.48-2.31 points), which corresponded with an effect size of 0.44 standard deviation units. Greater improvement in scores was associated (in order of greatest to least magnitude) with active participation required of the learners, a separate statistics session, fewer topics, less teaching time, fewer learners per tutor, larger overall course size and smaller group size. Clinicians and learners involved in medical publishing improved their score more than other types of learners; administrators and public health professionals improved their score less. Learners who perceived themselves to have an advanced knowledge of EBM and had prior experience as an EBM tutor also showed greater improvement than those who did not.</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>EBM course organizers who wish to optimize knowledge gain should require learners to actively participate in the course and should consider focusing on a small number of topics, giving particular attention to statistical concepts.</p>","PeriodicalId":88624,"journal":{"name":"Open medicine : a peer-reviewed, independent, open-access journal","volume":"4 1","pages":"e3-e10"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/61/33/OpenMed-04-e3.PMC3116678.pdf","citationCount":"24","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open medicine : a peer-reviewed, independent, open-access journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2174/1874104501004010003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2010/1/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 24

Abstract

Background: Health care professionals worldwide attend courses and workshops to learn evidence-based medicine (EBM), but evidence regarding the impact of these educational interventions is conflicting and of low methodologic quality and lacks generalizability. Furthermore, little is known about determinants of success. We sought to measure the effect of EBM short courses and workshops on knowledge and to identify course and learner characteristics associated with knowledge acquisition.

Methods: Health care professionals with varying expertise in EBM participated in an international, multicentre before-after study. The intervention consisted of short courses and workshops on EBM offered in diverse settings, formats and intensities. The primary outcome measure was the score on the Berlin Questionnaire, a validated instrument measuring EBM knowledge that the participants completed before and after the course.

Results: A total of 15 centres participated in the study and 420 learners from North America and Europe completed the study. The baseline score across courses was 7.49 points (range 3.97-10.42 points) out of a possible 15 points. The average increase in score was 1.40 points (95% confidence interval 0.48-2.31 points), which corresponded with an effect size of 0.44 standard deviation units. Greater improvement in scores was associated (in order of greatest to least magnitude) with active participation required of the learners, a separate statistics session, fewer topics, less teaching time, fewer learners per tutor, larger overall course size and smaller group size. Clinicians and learners involved in medical publishing improved their score more than other types of learners; administrators and public health professionals improved their score less. Learners who perceived themselves to have an advanced knowledge of EBM and had prior experience as an EBM tutor also showed greater improvement than those who did not.

Interpretation: EBM course organizers who wish to optimize knowledge gain should require learners to actively participate in the course and should consider focusing on a small number of topics, giving particular attention to statistical concepts.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

循证医学短期课程中知识获取的决定因素:一项国际评估。
背景:世界各地的卫生保健专业人员参加循证医学(EBM)的课程和研讨会,但关于这些教育干预的影响的证据是相互矛盾的,方法质量低,缺乏普遍性。此外,人们对成功的决定因素知之甚少。我们试图衡量实证医学短期课程和研讨会对知识的影响,并确定与知识获取相关的课程和学习者特征。方法:在EBM方面具有不同专业知识的卫生保健专业人员参加了一项国际,多中心的前后研究。干预包括在不同的环境、形式和强度下提供的短期课程和EBM讲习班。主要结果测量是柏林问卷的得分,这是一种有效的工具,测量参与者在课程前后完成的EBM知识。结果:共有15个中心参与了研究,来自北美和欧洲的420名学习者完成了研究。所有课程的基准分数为7.49分(3.97-10.42分),满分为15分。平均得分增加1.40分(95%置信区间0.48-2.31分),对应效应量为0.44个标准差单位。分数的提高与要求学习者积极参与、单独的统计课、更少的主题、更少的教学时间、每个导师更少的学习者、更大的总体课程规模和更小的小组规模相关(按最大到最小的顺序)。参与医学出版的临床医生和学习者的得分比其他类型的学习者提高得更多;行政管理人员和公共卫生专业人员的得分提高较少。那些认为自己拥有先进的循证医学知识并有作为循证医学导师的经验的学习者也比那些没有的学习者表现出更大的进步。解释:希望优化知识获取的实证医学课程组织者应该要求学习者积极参与课程,并应考虑关注少数主题,特别关注统计概念。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信