Bashaar Aweid1, Zakir Haider2, Maya Wehbe3, Alistair Hunter4. 1. Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK. 2. Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. 3. Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Basingstoke, UK. 4. University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Online journal clubs (JCs) have increased during the COVID-19 pandemic with the resulting social distancing and popularity of online platforms. This systematic review aims to explore current evidence of their use/benefits for clinicians and compare their value to face-to-face (F2F) JCs. METHODS: PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched systematically, adhering to PRISMA guidelines. Articles were included if they involved clinicians in medical/surgical populations, using an online JC assessing utility, experience and educational value. Quality assessment was undertaken using MERSQI. RESULTS: Fifteen studies were included with findings synthesised into five themes: critical appraisal skills, satisfaction/value, accessibility/environment, evidence-based practice, and preference of online JC. Studies revealed high satisfaction and equivocal or increased preference of online JCs compared to F2F due to ease of access, diverse participation, and less time/cost spent travelling. Online JCs were found to be educationally valuable, aiding development of critical appraisal skills, and promoting change in practice. Disadvantages included lack of discussion intensity, technical issues, and limited interaction on some platforms. DISCUSSION: Online JCs are educationally valuable with high satisfaction rates and distinct advantages/disadvantages to F2F JCs. More high-quality studies are required to elucidate the ideal format to further improve their educational value, utility, and adoption.
INTRODUCTION: Online journal clubs (JCs) have increased during the COVID-19 pandemic with the resulting social distancing and popularity of online platforms. This systematic review aims to explore current evidence of their use/benefits for clinicians and compare their value to face-to-face (F2F) JCs. METHODS: PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched systematically, adhering to PRISMA guidelines. Articles were included if they involved clinicians in medical/surgical populations, using an online JC assessing utility, experience and educational value. Quality assessment was undertaken using MERSQI. RESULTS: Fifteen studies were included with findings synthesised into five themes: critical appraisal skills, satisfaction/value, accessibility/environment, evidence-based practice, and preference of online JC. Studies revealed high satisfaction and equivocal or increased preference of online JCs compared to F2F due to ease of access, diverse participation, and less time/cost spent travelling. Online JCs were found to be educationally valuable, aiding development of critical appraisal skills, and promoting change in practice. Disadvantages included lack of discussion intensity, technical issues, and limited interaction on some platforms. DISCUSSION: Online JCs are educationally valuable with high satisfaction rates and distinct advantages/disadvantages to F2F JCs. More high-quality studies are required to elucidate the ideal format to further improve their educational value, utility, and adoption.