Premium
Electronic delivery of research summaries for academic generalist doctors: a randomised trial of an educational intervention
Author(s) -
Mukohara Kei,
Schwartz Mark D
Publication year - 2005
Publication title -
medical education
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.776
H-Index - 138
eISSN - 1365-2923
pISSN - 0308-0110
DOI - 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02109.x
Subject(s) - journal club , intervention (counseling) , critical appraisal , randomized controlled trial , reading (process) , medicine , family medicine , evidence based practice , psychology , alternative medicine , medical education , nursing , surgery , pathology , political science , law
Objective To determine whether weekly e‐mails of structured, critically appraised summaries of new articles, within the format of a Weekly Browsing Journal Club (WBJC), would encourage use of evidence in practice. Design Randomised controlled trial. Method A sample of 107 academic general internists were randomly assigned to receive either the WBJC ( n = 54) or a health news website ( n = 53) by e‐mail on a weekly basis for 3 months. Participants completed a pre‐ and post‐intervention questionnaire that measured their use of evidence in practice, attitudes about the role of evidence in practice, critical appraisal ability and reading habits. Results Of 107 participants, 90% completed the trial. At baseline, when faced with questions, they found answers on which to base their clinical decisions 67% of the time. Participants incorporated evidence into patient care for 60% of patients and read evidence to help make decisions for 25%. After 3 months, the groups did not differ in the use of evidence in practice. Changes in attitudes toward the role of evidence in practice and in self‐perceived critical appraisal ability were also similar. The subjects spent 2.2 hours reading 4.3 journals per week. Weekly reading time decreased by 10 minutes in the WBJC group, but increased by 26 minutes in the control group ( P = 0.02). At study completion, 82% of the WBJC group were satisfied with the intervention and 90% asked to continue. Conclusion While doctors appreciated these summaries, which improved their reading efficiency, the intervention had little impact on their use of research evidence in practice.