| Literature DB >> 26067056 |
Ellen te Pas1, Margreet Wieringa-de Waard2, Wouter de Ruijter3, Nynke van Dijk4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: General practitioners (GPs) experience barriers to the use of evidence-based medicine (EBM) related to a negative attitude and to insufficient knowledge and skills. We therefore designed a blended learning intervention to develop the competence of GP trainers in EBM. This study investigated the effectiveness of this intervention in increasing the trainers' EBM competencies (i.e. knowledge, skills, attitude and behaviour).Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26067056 PMCID: PMC4472415 DOI: 10.1186/s12909-015-0386-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Med Educ ISSN: 1472-6920 Impact factor: 2.463
Content of the EBM training
| Day 1: Introduction to EBM | Day 2: EBM – the difference between primary healthcare and second-line medical care | Day 3: How to handle conflicting evidence | Day 4: EBM – the revival | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Learning goals | • The GP trainer has knowledge of the different study designs in epidemiologic research. | • The GP trainer can identify the difference between primary healthcare and second-line medical care and its influence on evidence-based practice. | • The GP trainer is aware that reading just one article can lead to false conclusions. | • The GP trainer is aware that the steps of EBM can lead to a relevant answer. |
| • The GP trainer can name the advantages and disadvantages of the different study designs. | • The GP trainer can assess the validity, interest and applicability of a systematic review (SR) of side effects. | • The GP trainer can name the success factors of a successful EBM literature search. | ||
| • The GP trainer can name the bias risks of the different designs. | • The GP trainer is motivated to implement this approach in his/her own practice. | |||
| Assign-ments (3 h) | • E-learning chapters | • E-learning chapters | • E-learning chapters | • E-learning chapters |
| ◦ Introduction | ◦ Diagnostic research | ◦ Therapeutic research | ◦ Critical Appraised Topic (CAT) | |
| ◦ Background information | ◦ Screening research | ◦ Systematic review and meta analyses | • Preparing a mini CAT | |
| ◦ Searching for evidence | • Two learning questions about each of the e-learning chapters | ◦ Research on side effects | ||
| ◦ Common statistical constructs | • Search for a sensitivity and specificity of a test used in GP practice. | |||
| • Composing a PICO | ||||
| F2F (3 h) | • E-learning questions | • E-learning questions | • E-learning questions | • E-learning questions |
| • Programme | • Programme | • Programme | • Programme | |
| ◦ Learning questions about assignment | ◦ Learning questions about assignment | ◦ Learning questions about assignment | ◦ Learning questions about assignment | |
| ◦ Discussion on value and use of EBM | ◦ Discussion about differences between 1st- and 2nd-line care and EBM: group task | ◦ Debate about conflicting evidence | ◦ Learning of successes; presentation of each mini CAT | |
| ◦ Exercise: study designs | ◦ Influence of prevalence on 1) the outcomes of a diagnostic test, 2) the daily practice of the GP, 3) reasons for unjustified referral to a specialist; discussion and practise with examples | ◦ Critical appraisal of a SR | ||
| ◦ Introduction to PICO and literature search | ||||
| ◦ Skills training: searching for literature |
Personal characteristics of the responding GP trainers in Amsterdam and Leiden
| Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam | Leiden University Medical Center | |
|---|---|---|
| Participants (n) | 122 | 7 |
| Gender (% female) | 33.6 | 28.6 |
| Age (years; mean (SD)) | 55.9 (5.4) | 57.9 (5.0) |
| Experience as GP (years; mean (SD)) | 22.4 (7.2) | 24.4 (6.7) |
| GP trainer | 8 (6–11) | 10 (7–20) |
| Research experience (%) | 15.6 | 0 |
Scores per question of McColl test
| T0: Mean (SD) | T1: Mean (SD) | T 2: Mean (SD) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. How would you describe your own attitude towards the current promotion of EBM? | 63.5 (15.6) | 66.0 (15.7) | 58.2 (17.0) |
| 2. How would you describe the attitude of most of your colleagues towards EBM? | 59.3 (14.0) | 52.3 (17.5) | 54.3 (14.1) |
| 3. How useful is evidence-based medicine in your day-to-day management of patients? | 62.4 (16.8) | 63.5 (17.7) | 59.8 (18.2) |
| 4. What percentage of your clinical practice is currently evidence based? | 57.4 (15.7) | 63.0 (14.5) | 64.3 (11.1) |
| 5. Practicing EBM improves patient care. | 67.0 (17.3) | 71.0 (16.9) | 70.1 (14.0) |
| 6. EBM is of limited value in general practice because much of primary care lacks a scientific basis. | 45.1 (20.6) | 56.2 (21.3) | 54.8 (20.6) |
| 7. The adoption of EBM, however worthwhile as an ideal, places another demand on already overloaded GPs. | 38.1 (21.7) | 36.9 (23.1) | 40.5 (22.0) |
| Total score | 56.2 (10.7) | 58.4 (10.3) | 57.4 (9.3) |
Correlation and mean of the total Fresno scores related to self-rated knowledge
| Self-rated knowledge | Fresno score | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| To | T1 | T2 | ||||
| % | Mean (SD) | % | Mean (SD) | % | Mean (SD) | |
| Bad | 11.3 | 71.6 (31.0) | 2.2 | 79.0 (56.6) | 10.3 | 73.7 (36.7) |
| Moderate | 38.3 | 64.8 (39.5) | 30.1 | 111.9 (35.7) | 42.5 | 86.8 (38.6) |
| Average | 40.9 | 87.0 (40.9) | 53.8 | 121.6 (30.1) | 39.1 | 109.7 (32.8) |
| Good | 9.6 | 105.5 (37.9) | 14.0 | 141.1 (34.1) | 8.0 | 115.9 (46.1) |
| Very good | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
*Spearman’s rank correlation of the mean score on the Fresno test and self-rated knowledge
Correlation and mean of the total McColl scores and self-rated attitude
| Self-rated attitude | McColl score | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| To | T1 | T2 | ||||
| % | Mean (SD) | % | Mean (SD) | % | Mean (SD) | |
| Very unimportant | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Unimportant | 3.5 | 30.6 (8.0) | 1.1 | 41.0 (N/A) | 5.7 | 47.5 (10.9) |
| Neutral | 33.0 | 51.0 (8.6) | 26.9 | 52.4 (8.7) | 33.0 | 52.7 (7.3) |
| Important | 68.7 | 59.9 (8.8) | 71.0 | 60.7 (10.0) | 60.2 | 60.5 (8.3) |
| Very important | 2.6 | 63.1 (10.0) | 1.1 | 68.8 (N/A) | 1.1 | 77.7 (N/A) |
*Spearman’s rank correlation of the mean score on the McColl test and self-rated attitude
Differences in mean Fresno scores between men and women
| Gender | Mean (SD) | p | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fresno score at T0 | Female | 84.2 (37.8) | .253 |
| Male | 75.3 (42.0) | ||
| Fresno score at T1 | Female | 129.4 (27.3) | .040 |
| Male | 114.9 (36.2) | ||
| Fresno score at T2 | Female | 109.1 (37.9sss) | .023 |
| Male | 89.6 (37.9) |
Effect sizes (ES) and mean changes of the Fresno score with low (≤ median) and high (> median) starting level
| Fresno score | ≤ median | > median | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Time | ES | Mean (SD);∆ | ES | Mean (SD);∆ |
| T1T0 | 2.67 | 55.1 (±31.4) | 1.06 | 22.3 (± 27.8) |
| T2T0 | 1.69 | 39.6 (± 32.6) | 0.04 | 3.9 (± 31.7) |
| T2T1 | −0.68 | −13.5 (± 33.0) | −0.8 | −15.2 (± 31.4) |