Literature DB >> 20464753

Interventions to improve question formulation in professional practice and self-directed learning.

Tanya Horsley1, Jennifer O'Neill, Jessie McGowan, Laure Perrier, Gabrielle Kane, Craig Campbell.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Formulating questions is fundamental to the daily life of a healthcare worker and is a defining characteristic of professional competence and meaningful learning. With high expectations for healthcare providers to remain up-to-date with current evidence and the movement towards formalizing reflective practice as part of physician revalidation, it is important that curricula developed for improving the ability to formulate well-constructed questions are based on the best evidence.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of interventions for increasing the frequency and quality of questions formulated by healthcare providers in practice and the context of self-directed learning. SEARCH STRATEGY: We obtained studies from searches of electronic bibliographic databases, and supplemented these with handsearching, checking reference lists, and consultation with experts. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered published and unpublished randomized controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs), interrupted time-series (ITS), and controlled before-after (CBA) studies of any language examining interventions for increasing the quality and frequency of questions formulated by health professionals involved with direct patient care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently undertook all relevancy screening and 'Risk of bias' assessment in duplicate. Intervention characteristics, follow-up intervals, and measurement outcomes were diverse and precluded quantitative analysis. We have summarized data descriptively. MAIN
RESULTS: Searches identified four studies examining interventions to improve question formulation in healthcare professionals. Interventions were mostly multi-component, limited within the context of EBM and primarily in physician and resident populations. We did not identify studies examining changes in frequency of questions formulated or those within the context of reflection. Risk of bias was generally rated to be 'high risk'. Three of the four studies showed improvements in question formulation in physicians, residents, or mixed allied health populations in the short- to moderate term follow up. Only one study examined sustainability of effects at one year and reported that skills had eroded over time. AUTHORS'
CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from our review suggests that interventions to increase the quality of questions formulated in practice produce mixed results at both short- (immediately following intervention), and moderate-term follow up (up to nine months), comparatively. Although three studies reported effectiveness estimates of an educational intervention for increasing the quality of question formulation within the short term, only one study examined the effectiveness in the longer term (one year) and revealed that search skills had eroded over time. Data suggests that sustainability of effects from educational interventions for question formulation are unknown.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20464753     DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007335.pub2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev        ISSN: 1361-6137


  13 in total

1.  Evaluation of an Evidence-Based Medicine Curriculum in a PGY1 Pharmacy Residency Program Using the Fresno Test.

Authors:  Julie B Cooper; Michelle Turner; Meera Patel; Jennifer Markle; Caron Amend; Randall Absher; Jackie Roh
Journal:  Am J Pharm Educ       Date:  2018-06       Impact factor: 2.047

2.  The sustainability of improvements from continuing professional development in pharmacy practice and learning behaviors.

Authors:  Karen J McConnell; Thomas Delate; Carey L Newlon
Journal:  Am J Pharm Educ       Date:  2015-04-25       Impact factor: 2.047

3.  A characterization of clinical questions asked by rehabilitation therapists.

Authors:  Lorie Andrea Kloda; Joan C Bartlett
Journal:  J Med Libr Assoc       Date:  2014-04

4.  Does Participation in Written Guided Reflective Practice Exercises Affect Readiness for Self-Directed Learning in a Sample of US Anesthesiology Residents?

Authors:  Amy K Miller Juve; Jeffrey R Kirsch
Journal:  J Educ Perioper Med       Date:  2019-04-01

Review 5.  What are the effects of teaching evidence-based health care (EBHC)? Overview of systematic reviews.

Authors:  Taryn Young; Anke Rohwer; Jimmy Volmink; Mike Clarke
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-01-28       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 6.  Lifelong learning strategies in nursing: A systematic review.

Authors:  Mojtaba Qanbari Qalehsari; Morteza Khaghanizadeh; Abbas Ebadi
Journal:  Electron Physician       Date:  2017-10-25

7.  What are the effects of teaching Evidence-Based Health Care (EBHC) at different levels of health professions education? An updated overview of systematic reviews.

Authors:  Malgorzata M Bala; Tina Poklepović Peričić; Joanna Zajac; Anke Rohwer; Jitka Klugarova; Maritta Välimäki; Tella Lantta; Luca Pingani; Miloslav Klugar; Mike Clarke; Taryn Young
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-07-22       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  How do postgraduate GP trainees regulate their learning and what helps and hinders them? A qualitative study.

Authors:  Margaretha H Sagasser; Anneke W M Kramer; Cees P M van der Vleuten
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2012-08-06       Impact factor: 2.463

Review 9.  Interventions to improve safe and effective medicines use by consumers: an overview of systematic reviews.

Authors:  Rebecca Ryan; Nancy Santesso; Dianne Lowe; Sophie Hill; Jeremy Grimshaw; Megan Prictor; Caroline Kaufman; Genevieve Cowie; Michael Taylor
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2014-04-29

10.  Evaluating the impact of an intensive education workshop on evidence-informed decision making knowledge, skills, and behaviours: a mixed methods study.

Authors:  Jennifer Yost; Donna Ciliska; Maureen Dobbins
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2014-01-17       Impact factor: 2.463

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.