Cargando…
Evaluation of an online interactive Diabetes Needs Assessment Tool (DNAT) versus online self-directed learning: a randomised controlled trial
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 onl...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2011
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3130714/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21679446 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-11-35 |
_version_ | 1782207646721376256 |
---|---|
author | Schroter, Sara Jenkins, Richard D Playle, Rebecca A Walsh, Kieran M Probert, Courtenay Kellner, Thomas Arnhofer, Gerhard Owens, David R |
author_facet | Schroter, Sara Jenkins, Richard D Playle, Rebecca A Walsh, Kieran M Probert, Courtenay Kellner, Thomas Arnhofer, Gerhard Owens, David R |
author_sort | Schroter, Sara |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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 |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3130714 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2011 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-31307142011-07-07 Evaluation of an online interactive Diabetes Needs Assessment Tool (DNAT) versus online self-directed learning: a randomised controlled trial Schroter, Sara Jenkins, Richard D Playle, Rebecca A Walsh, Kieran M Probert, Courtenay Kellner, Thomas Arnhofer, Gerhard Owens, David R BMC Med Educ Research Article 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 BioMed Central 2011-06-16 /pmc/articles/PMC3130714/ /pubmed/21679446 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-11-35 Text en Copyright ©2011 Schroter et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Schroter, Sara Jenkins, Richard D Playle, Rebecca A Walsh, Kieran M Probert, Courtenay Kellner, Thomas Arnhofer, Gerhard Owens, David R Evaluation of an online interactive Diabetes Needs Assessment Tool (DNAT) versus online self-directed learning: a randomised controlled trial |
title | Evaluation of an online interactive Diabetes Needs Assessment Tool (DNAT) versus online self-directed learning: a randomised controlled trial |
title_full | Evaluation of an online interactive Diabetes Needs Assessment Tool (DNAT) versus online self-directed learning: a randomised controlled trial |
title_fullStr | Evaluation of an online interactive Diabetes Needs Assessment Tool (DNAT) versus online self-directed learning: a randomised controlled trial |
title_full_unstemmed | Evaluation of an online interactive Diabetes Needs Assessment Tool (DNAT) versus online self-directed learning: a randomised controlled trial |
title_short | Evaluation of an online interactive Diabetes Needs Assessment Tool (DNAT) versus online self-directed learning: a randomised controlled trial |
title_sort | evaluation of an online interactive diabetes needs assessment tool (dnat) versus online self-directed learning: a randomised controlled trial |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3130714/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21679446 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-11-35 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT schrotersara evaluationofanonlineinteractivediabetesneedsassessmenttooldnatversusonlineselfdirectedlearningarandomisedcontrolledtrial AT jenkinsrichardd evaluationofanonlineinteractivediabetesneedsassessmenttooldnatversusonlineselfdirectedlearningarandomisedcontrolledtrial AT playlerebeccaa evaluationofanonlineinteractivediabetesneedsassessmenttooldnatversusonlineselfdirectedlearningarandomisedcontrolledtrial AT walshkieranm evaluationofanonlineinteractivediabetesneedsassessmenttooldnatversusonlineselfdirectedlearningarandomisedcontrolledtrial AT probertcourtenay evaluationofanonlineinteractivediabetesneedsassessmenttooldnatversusonlineselfdirectedlearningarandomisedcontrolledtrial AT kellnerthomas evaluationofanonlineinteractivediabetesneedsassessmenttooldnatversusonlineselfdirectedlearningarandomisedcontrolledtrial AT arnhofergerhard evaluationofanonlineinteractivediabetesneedsassessmenttooldnatversusonlineselfdirectedlearningarandomisedcontrolledtrial AT owensdavidr evaluationofanonlineinteractivediabetesneedsassessmenttooldnatversusonlineselfdirectedlearningarandomisedcontrolledtrial |