Article type
Abstract
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.
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.