Article

Designing tailored Web-based instruction to improve practicing physicians' preventive practices.

Division of Continuing Medical Education, University of Alabama School of Medicine, Birmingham, AL 35294-4551, USA.
Journal of Medical Internet Research (Impact Factor: 3.77). 01/2003; 5(3):e20. DOI: 10.2196/jmir.5.3.e20
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The World Wide Web has led to the rapid growth of medical information and continuing medical educational offerings. Ease of access and availability at any time are advantages of the World Wide Web. Existing physician-education sites have often been designed and developed without systematic application of evidence and cognitive-educational theories; little rigorous evaluation has been conducted to determine which design factors are most effective in facilitating improvements in physician performance and patient-health outcomes that might occur as a result of physician participation in Web-based education. Theory and evidence-based Web design principles include the use of: needs assessment, multimodal strategies, interactivity, clinical cases, tailoring, credible evidence-based content, audit and feedback, and patient-education materials. Ease of use and design to support the lowest common technology denominator are also important.
Using these principles, design and develop a Web site including multimodal strategies for improving chlamydial-screening rates among primary care physicians.
We used office-practice data in needs assessment and as an audit/feedback tool. In the intervention introduced in 4 phases over 11 months, we provided a series of interactive, tailored, case vignettes with feedback on peer answers. We included a quality-improvement toolbox including clinical practice guidelines and printable patient education materials.
In the formative evaluation of the first 2 chlamydia modules, data regarding the recruitment, enrollment, participation, and reminders have been examined. Preliminary evaluation data from a randomized, controlled trial has tested the effectiveness of this intervention in improving chlamydia screening rates with a significant increase in intervention physicians' chlamydia knowledge, attitude, and skills compared to those of a control group.
The application of theory in the development and evaluation of a Web-based continuing medical education intervention offers valuable insight into World Wide Web technology's influence on physician performance and the quality of medical care.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
85 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The movement towards evidence-based practice makes explicit the need for access to current best evidence to improve health. Advances in electronic technologies have made health information more available, but does availability affect the rate of use of evidence in practice? To assess the effectiveness of interventions intended to provide electronic retrieval (access to information) to health information by healthcare providers to improve practice and patient care. We obtained studies from computerized searches of multiple electronic bibliographic databases, supplemented by checking reference lists, and consultation with experts. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including cluster randomized trials (CRCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCT), and interrupted time series analyses (ITS) of any language publication status examining interventions of effectiveness of electronic retrieval of health information by healthcare providers. Duplicate relevancy screening of searches, data abstraction and risk of bias assessment was undertaken. We found two studies that examined this question. Neither study found any changes in professional behavior following an intervention that facilitated electronic retrieval of health information. There was some evidence of improvements in knowledge about the electronic sources of information reported in one study. Neither study assessed changes in patient outcomes or the costs of provision of the electronic resource and the implementation of the recommended evidence-based practices. Overall there was insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of electronic retrieval of healthcare information by healthcare providers to improve practice and patient care.
    Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) 02/2009; · 5.70 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The opportunity to improve care by delivering decision support to clinicians at the point of care represents one of the main incentives for implementing sophisticated clinical information systems. Previous reviews of computer reminder and decision support systems have reported mixed effects, possibly because they did not distinguish point of care computer reminders from e-mail alerts, computer-generated paper reminders, and other modes of delivering 'computer reminders'. To evaluate the effects on processes and outcomes of care attributable to on-screen computer reminders delivered to clinicians at the point of care. We searched the Cochrane EPOC Group Trials register, MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL and CENTRAL to July 2008, and scanned bibliographies from key articles. Studies of a reminder delivered via a computer system routinely used by clinicians, with a randomised or quasi-randomised design and reporting at least one outcome involving a clinical endpoint or adherence to a recommended process of care. Two authors independently screened studies for eligibility and abstracted data. For each study, we calculated the median improvement in adherence to target processes of care and also identified the outcome with the largest such improvement. We then calculated the median absolute improvement in process adherence across all studies using both the median outcome from each study and the best outcome. Twenty-eight studies (reporting a total of thirty-two comparisons) were included. Computer reminders achieved a median improvement in process adherence of 4.2% (interquartile range (IQR): 0.8% to 18.8%) across all reported process outcomes, 3.3% (IQR: 0.5% to 10.6%) for medication ordering, 3.8% (IQR: 0.5% to 6.6%) for vaccinations, and 3.8% (IQR: 0.4% to 16.3%) for test ordering. In a sensitivity analysis using the best outcome from each study, the median improvement was 5.6% (IQR: 2.0% to 19.2%) across all process measures and 6.2% (IQR: 3.0% to 28.0%) across measures of medication ordering. In the eight comparisons that reported dichotomous clinical endpoints, intervention patients experienced a median absolute improvement of 2.5% (IQR: 1.3% to 4.2%). Blood pressure was the most commonly reported clinical endpoint, with intervention patients experiencing a median reduction in their systolic blood pressure of 1.0 mmHg (IQR: 2.3 mmHg reduction to 2.0 mmHg increase). Point of care computer reminders generally achieve small to modest improvements in provider behaviour. A minority of interventions showed larger effects, but no specific reminder or contextual features were significantly associated with effect magnitude. Further research must identify design features and contextual factors consistently associated with larger improvements in provider behaviour if computer reminders are to succeed on more than a trial and error basis.
    Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) 02/2009; · 5.70 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In the previous version of this review, the effectiveness of interventions tailored to barriers to change was found to be uncertain. To assess the effectiveness of interventions tailored to address identified barriers to change on professional practice or patient outcomes. For this update, in addition to the EPOC Register and pending files, we searched the following databases without language restrictions, from inception until August 2007: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, BNI and HMIC. We searched the National Research Register to November 2007. We undertook further searches to October 2009 to identify potentially eligible published or ongoing trials. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions tailored to address prospectively identified barriers to change that reported objectively measured professional practice or healthcare outcomes in which at least one group received an intervention designed to address prospectively identified barriers to change. Two reviewers independently assessed quality and extracted data. We undertook quantitative and qualitative analyses. The quantitative analyses had two elements.1. We carried out a meta-regression to compare interventions tailored to address identified barriers to change with either no interventions or an intervention(s) not tailored to the barriers.2. We carried out heterogeneity analyses to investigate sources of differences in the effectiveness of interventions. These included the effects of: risk of bias, concealment of allocation, rigour of barrier analysis, use of theory, complexity of interventions, and the reported presence of administrative constraints. We included 26 studies comparing an intervention tailored to address identified barriers to change to no intervention or an intervention(s) not tailored to the barriers. The effect sizes of these studies varied both across and within studies.Twelve studies provided enough data to be included in the quantitative analysis. A meta-regression model was fitted adjusting for baseline odds by fitting it as a covariate, to obtain the pooled odds ratio of 1.54 (95% CI, 1.16 to 2.01) from Bayesian analysis and 1.52 (95% CI, 1.27 to 1.82, P < 0.001) from classical analysis. The heterogeneity analyses found that no study attributes investigated were significantly associated with effectiveness of the interventions. Interventions tailored to prospectively identified barriers are more likely to improve professional practice than no intervention or dissemination of guidelines. However, the methods used to identify barriers and tailor interventions to address them need further development. Research is required to determine the effectiveness of tailored interventions in comparison with other interventions.
    Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) 01/2010; · 5.70 Impact Factor