Assessment of reporting of evidence-based healthcare (EBHC) e-learning interventions in included studies of a Campbell systematic review

ID: 

18491

Session: 

Short oral session 1: Improving conduct and reporting of evidence synthesis

Date: 

Wednesday 13 September 2017 - 11:00 to 12:30

Location: 

Meeting Room 1.43

All authors in correct order:

Rohwer A1, Motaze NV1, Rehfuess E2, Young T1
1 Centre for Evidence-based Health Care, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, South Africa
2 Institute for Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Germany
Presenting author and contact person

Presenting author:

Anke Rohwer

Contact person:

Anke Rohwer
Abstract text
Background: We conducted a Campbell review on e-learning of evidence-based healthcare (EBHC) to increase EBHC competencies in healthcare professionals. Data were extracted based on our logic model and included details of the intervention, educational context and implementation.

Objectives: To assess reporting of EBHC e-learning interventions for studies included in our review using the guideline for reporting evidence-based practice educational interventions and teaching (GREET).

Methods: The GREET checklist comprises 17 items recommended for transparent reporting of EBHC educational interventions. Two authors independently assessed reporting of EBHC e-learning interventions for each of the included studies. We made judgements on adequate reporting for each GREET item (yes/no/unclear) and provided justifications. Discrepancies were resolved through discussions and consultations with a third author. We entered data into Excel and analysed results descriptively.

Results: Of the 24 included studies, 96% provided a brief description of the educational intervention; 29% mentioned a theory; 38% described the learning objectives; 92% listed the EBHC content; 58% adequately specified learning materials; 88% described educational strategies; 25% reported incentives; 17% provided details on instructors; 71% adequately reported on delivery of the intervention; 46% reported learning environments; 67% described the schedule; 63% specified the time spent; 21% reported planned, but 0% reported unplanned changes to the intervention; 13% reported learners’ attendance; 4% included a process to determine whether materials and strategies were delivered as planned; and, 0% described whether the intervention was delivered as scheduled. None of the included studies adequately reported on all items.

Conclusions: Our assessment of reporting of EBHC e-learning interventions revealed that included studies did not follow the GREET format. Transparent, comprehensive reporting of interventions is important to those considering the use of research on these interventions as well as for the conduct of evidence synthesis.