English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Objectives  Causality assessment of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) by healthcare professionals is often informal which can lead to inconsistencies in practice. The  L iverpool  C ausality  A ssessment  T ool ( LCAT ) offers a systematic approach. An interactive, web‐based, e‐learning package, the Liverpool ADR Causality Assessment e‐learning Package ( LACAeP ), was designed to improve causality assessment using the  LCAT . This study aimed to (1) get feedback on usability and usefulness on the  LACAeP , identify areas for improvement and development, and generate data on effect size to inform a larger scale study; and (2) test the usability and usefulness of the  LCAT .    Methods  A pilot, single‐blind, parallel‐group, randomised controlled trial hosted by the University of Liverpool was undertaken. Participants were paediatric medical trainees at specialty training level 1+ within the  M ersey and  N orth‐ W est  E ngland  D eaneries. Participants were randomised (1 : 1) access to the  LACAeP  or no training. The primary efficacy outcome was score by correct classification, predefined by a multidisciplinary panel of experts. Following participation, feedback on both the LCAT and the LACAeP was obtained, via a built in survey, from participants.    Key findings  Of 57 randomised, 35 completed the study. Feedback was mainly positive although areas for improvement were identified. Seventy‐four per cent of participants found the  LCAT  easy to use and 78% found the  LACAeP  training useful. Sixty‐one per cent would be unlikely to recommend the training. Scores ranged from 4 to 13 out of 20. The  LACAeP  increased scores by 1.3, but this was not significant.    Conclusions  Improving the  LACAeP  before testing it in an appropriately powered trial, informed by the differences observed, is required. Rigorous evaluation will enable a quality resource that will be of value in healthcare professional training.

A pilot randomised controlled trial to assess the utility of an e‐learning package that trains users in adverse drug reaction causality