首页> 外文期刊>BMC Medical Education >Evaluation of an online interactive Diabetes Needs Assessment Tool (DNAT) versus online self-directed learning: a randomised controlled trial
【24h】

Evaluation of an online interactive Diabetes Needs Assessment Tool (DNAT) versus online self-directed learning: a randomised controlled trial

机译:在线互动式糖尿病需求评估工具(DNAT)与在线自我指导学习的评估:一项随机对照试验

获取原文
       

摘要

Background Methods for the dissemination, understanding and implementation of clinical guidelines need to be examined for their effectiveness to help doctors integrate guidelines into practice. The objective of this randomised controlled trial was to evaluate the effectiveness of an interactive online Diabetes Needs Assessment Tool (DNAT) (which constructs an e-learning curriculum based on individually identified knowledge gaps), compared with self-directed e-learning of diabetes guidelines. Methods Health professionals were randomised to a 4-month learning period and either given access to diabetes learning modules alone (control group) or DNAT plus learning modules (intervention group). Participants completed knowledge tests before and after learning (primary outcome), and surveys to assess the acceptability of the learning and changes to clinical practice (secondary outcomes). Results Sixty four percent (677/1054) of participants completed both knowledge tests. The proportion of nurses (5.4%) was too small for meaningful analysis so they were excluded. For the 650 doctors completing both tests, mean (SD) knowledge scores increased from 47.4% (12.6) to 66.8% (11.5) [intervention group (n = 321, 64%)] and 47.3% (12.9) to 67.8% (10.8) [control group (n = 329, 66%)], (ANCOVA p = 0.186). Both groups were satisfied with the usability and usefulness of the learning materials. Seventy seven percent (218/284) of the intervention group reported combining the DNAT with the recommended reading materials was "very useful"/"useful". The majority in both groups (184/287, 64.1% intervention group and 206/299, 68.9% control group) [95% CI for the difference (-2.8 to 12.4)] reported integrating the learning into their clinical practice. Conclusions Both groups experienced a similar and significant improvement in knowledge. The learning materials were acceptable and participants incorporated the acquired knowledge into practice. Trial registration ISRCTN: ISRCTN67215088
机译:背景技术需要检查传播,理解和执行临床指南的方法的有效性,以帮助医生将指南纳入实践。这项随机对照试验的目的是评估交互式糖尿病在线需求评估工具(DNAT)的有效性(该工具根据个人识别的知识差距构建电子学习课程),并与自我指导的糖尿病电子学习指南进行比较。方法卫生专业人员被随机分配到4个月的学习期,并可以单独使用糖尿病学习模块(对照组)或DNAT加学习模块(干预组)。参加者在学习前后完成知识测试(主要结果),并进行调查以评估学习的可接受性和临床实践的变化(次要结果)。结果百分之六十四(677/1054)的参与者完成了两个知识测验。护士的比例(5.4%)太小,无法进行有意义的分析,因此被排除在外。对于完成这两项测试的650名医生,平均(SD)知识得分从47.4%(12.6)增至66.8%(11.5)[干预组(n = 321,64%)]和​​47.3%(12.9)增至67.8%(10.8) )[对照组(n = 329,66%)],(ANCOVA p = 0.186)。两组都对学习材料的可用性和实用性感到满意。干预组的百分之七十七(218/284)报告说,将DNAT与推荐的阅读材料结合使用是“非常有用” /“有用”。两组中的大多数(184/287,干预组为64.1%,对照组为206/299,对照组为68.9%)[差异的95%CI(-2.8至12.4)]报告称将学习纳入了他们的临床实践。结论两组的知识都有相似且显着的提高。学习材料是可以接受的,参与者将获得的知识纳入了实践。试用注册ISRCTN:ISRCTN67215088

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号