Creating an online educational intervention to improve knowledge about systematic reviews among healthcare workers: mixed-methods pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Lack of knowledge about systematic reviews (SRs) could prevent individual healthcare workers (HCWs) from using SRs as a source of information in their clinical practice or discourage them from participating in such research. In this study, we aimed to explore in-depth the opinion of a sample of HCWs about the newly created online educational intervention designed to improve knowledge about SRs. METHODS: We created a brief online educational intervention on SRs, consisting of 11 textual modules. We evaluated it among practicing HCWs who graduated from a university-level health sciences program using a mixed-methods pilot study that consisted of pre- and post-intervention questionnaires and qualitative evaluation via semi-structured interviews. We assessed participants' knowledge about SR methodology before and after the intervention, and compared the responses. We sought their opinions about the characteristics of SRs. Also, the participants were presented with four scientific abstracts, where they were asked to distinguish whether those abstracts presented summaries of a systematic or a non-systematic review. RESULTS: Twelve participants took part in the study. In the pilot study, the participants' knowledge about SRs was improved after the intervention compared to the baseline. Participants provided positive feedback regarding the educational intervention. Suggestions to improve the educational intervention were to provide more details about the forest plot, add more digital content or images, provide more details about the methodological steps of an SR, add descriptions about practical applications of SRs and provide links to additional educational materials. The participants suggested that HCWs could be motivated to take part in such an education if it is offered as continuing medical education (CME) course or credit for academic/career advancement. CONCLUSION: HCWs provided positive feedback about the newly designed online educational intervention on SRs; they considered it an appropriate tool for learning about SRs and resulted in increased knowledge about SRs. In addition, participants gave suggestions for improving education, which can be used to tailor the education for end-users. In future studies, it would be useful to examine the effectiveness of the modified educational intervention on increasing knowledge in a larger sample and in the form of a randomized controlled trial.

Web-Based Educational Intervention to Improve Knowledge of Systematic Reviews Among Health Science Professionals: Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Lack of knowledge of systematic reviews (SRs) could prevent individual health care professionals from using SRs as a source of information in their clinical practice or discourage them from participating in such research. OBJECTIVE: In this randomized controlled trial, we evaluated the effect of a short web-based educational intervention on short-term knowledge of SRs. METHODS: Eligible participants were 871 Master's students of university health sciences studies in Croatia; 589 (67.6%) students who agreed to participate in the trial were randomized using a computer program into 2 groups. Intervention group A (294/589, 49.9%) received a short web-based educational intervention about SR methodology, and intervention group B (295/589, 50.1%) was presented with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) checklist. The participants' knowledge of SRs was assessed before and after the intervention. The participants could not be blinded because of the nature of the intervention. The primary outcome was the difference in the percentage of correct answers about SR methodology per participant between the groups after the intervention, expressed as relative risk and 95% CI. RESULTS: Results from 162 and 165 participants in the educational intervention and PRISMA checklist groups, respectively, were available for analysis. Most of them (educational intervention group: 130/162, 80.2%; PRISMA checklist group: 131/165, 79.4%) were employed as health care professionals in addition to being health sciences students. After the intervention, the educational intervention group had 23% (relative risk percentage) more correct answers in the postintervention questionnaire than the PRISMA checklist group (relative risk=1.23, 95% CI 1.17-1.29). CONCLUSIONS: A short web-based educational intervention about SRs is an effective tool for short-term improvement of knowledge of SRs among health care studies students, most of whom were also employed as health care professionals. Further studies are needed to explore the long-term effects of the tested education. TRIAL REGISTRATION: OSF Registries 10.17605/OSF.IO/RYMVC; https://osf.io/rymvc.

Attitudes and concerns of undergraduate university health sciences students in Croatia regarding complete switch to e-learning during COVID-19 pandemic: a survey.

BACKGROUND: Croatia has closed all educational institutions after 32 cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection were confirmed and switched to exclusive e-learning. Health sciences university students may have been particularly affected with this change due to a lack of practical education. It is not known how health sciences students and schools have adjusted to exclusive e-learning. This study aimed to explore attitudes and concerns of health sciences students in Croatia regarding the complete switch to e-learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Eligible participants were students from 9 institutions offering university-level health sciences education in Croatia enrolled in the academic year 2019/2010, and participating in e-learning. Data were collected with a questionnaire distributed via email during April/May 2020. RESULTS: A total of 2520 students (aged 25.7 ± 7.7 years) responded to the questionnaire (70.3% response rate). General satisfaction with exclusive e-learning was rated with average grade of 3.7 out of 5. Compared with previous education, exclusive e-learning was rated with average grade of 3.2 out of 5. Compared to classroom learning, equal or higher motivation to attend exclusive e-learning was reported by 64.4% of participants. With a longer duration of exclusive e-learning, equal or higher motivation was reported by 65.5% of participants. Less than half of the students indicated they felt deprived or concerned due to the lack of practical lessons. Most participants indicated that in the future, they would prefer to combine classic classroom and e-learning (N = 1403; 55.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Most health sciences students were satisfied with the exclusive e-learning, as well as their personal and institutional adjustment to it. Students' feedback can help institutions to improve the exclusive e-learning experience for students in the time of the pandemic.