1365-2923/asset/olbannerleft.gif?v=1&s=e715a50d377e50b608e31c49e637019f8b599113)
1365-2923/asset/olbannerright.gif?v=1&s=d2da59fbe457d83389d3660b9f2a547e047567e1)
Electronic delivery of research summaries for academic generalist doctors: a randomised trial of an educational intervention
Article first published online: 24 MAR 2005
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02109.x
Additional Information
How to Cite
Mukohara, K. and Schwartz, M. D. (2005), Electronic delivery of research summaries for academic generalist doctors: a randomised trial of an educational intervention. Medical Education, 39: 402–409. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02109.x
Publication History
- Issue published online: 24 MAR 2005
- Article first published online: 24 MAR 2005
- Received 15 January 2004; editorial comments to authors 16 January 2004, 4 May 2004,16 June 2004; accepted for publication 24 June 2004
- Abstract
- Article
- References
- Cited By
Keywords:
- education;
- medical;
- continuing/*methods;
- electronic mail/*organisation;
- attitude of health personnel;
- evidence-based medicine/*education;
- decision making;
- questionnaires;
- randomised controlled trials
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.