Adherence to the Guideline for Reporting Evidence-based practice Educational interventions and Teaching (GREET) of studies on evidence-based healthcare e-learning: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study are to assess reporting of evidence-based healthcare (EBHC) e-learning interventions using the Guideline for Reporting Evidence-based practice Educational interventions and Teaching (GREET) checklist and explore factors associated with compliant reporting. DESIGN: Methodological cross-sectional study. METHODS: Based on the criteria used in an earlier systematic review, we included studies comparing EBHC e-learning and any other form of EBHC training or no EBHC training. We searched Medline, Embase, ERIC, CINAHL, CENTRAL, SCOPUS, Web of Knowledge, PsycInfo, ProQuest and Best Evidence Medical Education up to 4 January 2023. Screening of titles, abstracts, full-text articles and data extraction was done independently by two authors. For each study, we assessed adherence to each of the 17 GREET items and extracted information on possible predictors. Adequacy of reporting for each item of the GREET checklist was judged with yes (provided complete information), no (provided no information), unclear (when insufficient information was provided), or not applicable, when the item was clearly of no relevance to the intervention described (such as for item 8-details about the instructors-in the studies which used electronic, self-paced intervention, without any tutoring). Studies' adherence to the GREET checklist was presented as percentages and absolute numbers. We performed univariate analysis to assess the association of potential adherence predictors with the GREET checklist. We summarised results descriptively. RESULTS: We included 40 studies, the majority of which assessed e-learning or blended learning and mostly involved medical and other healthcare students. None of the studies fully reported all the GREET items. Overall, the median number of GREET items met (received yes) per study was 8 and third quartile (Q3) of GREET items met per study was 9 (min. 4 max. 14). When we used Q3 of the number of items met as cut-off point, adherence to the GREET reporting checklist was poor with 7 out of 40 studies (17.5%) reporting items of the checklist on acceptable level (adhered to at least 10 items out of 17). None of the studies reported on all 17 GREET items. For 3 items, 80% of included studies well reported information (received yes for these items): item 1 (brief description of intervention), item 4 (evidence-based practice content) and item 6 (educational strategies). Items for which 50% of included studies reported complete information (received yes for these items) included: item 9 (modes of delivery), item 11 (schedule) and 12 (time spent on learning). The items for which 70% or more of included studies did not provide information (received no for these items) included: item 7 (incentives) and item 13 (adaptations; for both items 70% of studies received no for them), item 14 (modifications of educational interventions-95% of studies received no for this item), item 16 (any processes to determine whether the materials and the educational strategies used in the educational intervention were delivered as originally planned-93% of studies received no for this item) and 17 (intervention delivery according to schedule-100% of studies received no for this item). Studies published after September 2016 showed slight improvements in nine reporting items. In the logistic regression models, using the cut-off point of Q3 (10 points or above) the odds of acceptable adherence to GREET guidelines were 7.5 times higher if adherence to other guideline (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials, Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology, etc) was reported for a given study type (p=0.039), also higher number of study authors increased the odds of adherence to GREET guidance by 18% (p=0.037). CONCLUSIONS: Studies assessing educational interventions on EBHC e-learning still poorly adhere to the GREET checklist. Using other reporting guidelines increased the odds of better GREET reporting. Journals should call for the use of appropriate use of reporting guidelines of future studies on teaching EBHC to increase transparency of reporting, decrease unnecessary research duplication and facilitate uptake of research evidence or result. STUDY REGISTRATION NUMBER: The Open Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/V86FR).

Social capital and all-cause mortality before and during the COVID-19 pandemic among middle-aged and older people: Prospective cohort study in Poland.

Prior to the pandemic, studies demonstrated the mainly protective role of structural social capital on all-cause mortality, less evidence had been found for a protective role for cognitive social capital. However, some findings from the early stage of the pandemic suggest that civic participation and group affiliation may be associated with more COVID-19-related deaths, as was interpersonal trust. Thus, the study aimed to verify indicators of individual social capital as risk factors for 7.6-year all-cause mortality before COVID-19 pandemic and 1.6-year all-cause mortality during of the pandemic among men and women aged 50+ years in Poland. The Polish part of the COURAGE in Europe cross-sectional baseline study was conducted in 2011. The analysis included 2913 face-to-face interviews with randomly selected community-dwelling individuals. Information about deaths was obtained from the State Systems Department on Oct 7, 2021. Various aspects of structural and cognitive social capital were measured. The Cox proportional hazard models were used. Before the pandemic, a protective effect of structural (formal and informal social participation) and cognitive social capital (trust in family, trust in co-workers) on the risk of death was observed in women. However, a negative effect of cognitive social capital (trust in strangers) was found for women and men. No positive effect of social capital during the pandemic after controlling for the health-related characteristics was found. A negative effect of generalized trust on all-cause mortality during the pandemic was discerned for men, a negative effect of the level of one's social network was found in women. The observed patterns of relationships were totally different for analyzed periods of time, and different for men and women. Consequently, planning of social interventions directed towards middle and older age groups should consider various actions for men and women separately. The need for continuous evaluation of implemented social interventions was emphasized.