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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Schroter, Sara, Jenkins, Richard D, Playle, Rebecca A, Walsh, Kieran M, Probert, Courtenay, Kellner, Thomas, Arnhofer, Gerhard, Owens, David R
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