Title |
A simple heuristic for Internet-based evidence search in primary care: a randomized controlled trial
|
---|---|
Published in |
Advances in Medical Education and Practice, August 2016
|
DOI | 10.2147/amep.s78385 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Andreas Eberbach, Annette Becker, Justine Rochon, Holger Finkemeler, Achim Wagner, Norbert Donner-Banzhoff |
Abstract |
General practitioners (GPs) are confronted with a wide variety of clinical questions, many of which remain unanswered. In order to assist GPs in finding quick, evidence-based answers, we developed a learning program (LP) with a short interactive workshop based on a simple three-step-heuristic to improve their search and appraisal competence (SAC). We evaluated the LP effectiveness with a randomized controlled trial (RCT). Participants (intervention group [IG] n=20; control group [CG] n=31) rated acceptance and satisfaction and also answered 39 knowledge questions to assess their SAC. We controlled for previous knowledge in content areas covered by the test. Main outcome - SAC: within both groups, the pre-post test shows significant (P=0.00) improvements in correctness (IG 15% vs CG 11%) and confidence (32% vs 26%) to find evidence-based answers. However, the SAC difference was not significant in the RCT. Most workshop participants rated "learning atmosphere" (90%), "skills acquired" (90%), and "relevancy to my practice" (86%) as good or very good. The LP-recommendations were implemented by 67% of the IG, whereas 15% of the CG already conformed to LP recommendations spontaneously (odds ratio 9.6, P=0.00). After literature search, the IG showed a (not significantly) higher satisfaction regarding "time spent" (IG 80% vs CG 65%), "quality of information" (65% vs 54%), and "amount of information" (53% vs 47%). Long-standing established GPs have a good SAC. Despite high acceptance, strong learning effects, positive search experience, and significant increase of SAC in the pre-post test, the RCT of our LP showed no significant difference in SAC between IG and CG. However, we suggest that our simple decision heuristic merits further investigation. |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 14 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 3 | 21% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 14% |
Librarian | 1 | 7% |
Other | 1 | 7% |
Researcher | 1 | 7% |
Other | 0 | 0% |
Unknown | 6 | 43% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 43% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 7% |
Unspecified | 1 | 7% |
Unknown | 6 | 43% |