Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Jul 18;17(1):139.
doi: 10.1186/s12916-019-1370-1.

Health professions digital education on clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review by Digital Health Education collaboration

Lorainne Tudor Car  1   2 , Aijia Soong  3 , Bhone Myint Kyaw  3 , Kee Leng Chua  4 , Naomi Low-Beer  5 , Azeem Majeed  6
Affiliations

Health professions digital education on clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review by Digital Health Education collaboration

Lorainne Tudor Car et al. BMC Med. .

Abstract

Background: Clinical practice guidelines are an important source of information, designed to help clinicians integrate research evidence into their clinical practice. Digital education is increasingly used for clinical practice guideline dissemination and adoption. Our aim was to evaluate the effectiveness of digital education in improving the adoption of clinical practice guidelines.

Methods: We performed a systematic review and searched seven electronic databases from January 1990 to September 2018. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We included studies in any language evaluating the effectiveness of digital education on clinical practice guidelines compared to other forms of education or no intervention in healthcare professionals. We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach to assess the quality of the body of evidence.

Results: Seventeen trials involving 2382 participants were included. The included studies were diverse with a largely unclear or high risk of bias. They mostly focused on physicians, evaluated computer-based interventions with limited interactivity and measured participants' knowledge and behaviour. With regard to knowledge, studies comparing the effect of digital education with no intervention showed a moderate, statistically significant difference in favour of digital education intervention (SMD = 0.85, 95% CI 0.16, 1.54; I2 = 83%, n = 3, moderate quality of evidence). Studies comparing the effect of digital education with traditional learning on knowledge showed a small, statistically non-significant difference in favour of digital education (SMD = 0.23, 95% CI - 0.12, 0.59; I2 = 34%, n = 3, moderate quality of evidence). Three studies measured participants' skills and reported mixed results. Of four studies measuring satisfaction, three studies favoured digital education over traditional learning. Of nine studies evaluating healthcare professionals' behaviour change, only one study comparing email-delivered, spaced education intervention to no intervention reported improvement in the intervention group. Of three studies reporting patient outcomes, only one study comparing email-delivered, spaced education games to non-interactive online resources reported modest improvement in the intervention group. The quality of evidence for outcomes other than knowledge was mostly judged as low due to risk of bias, imprecision and/or inconsistency.

Conclusions: Health professions digital education on clinical practice guidelines is at least as effective as traditional learning and more effective than no intervention in terms of knowledge. Most studies report little or no difference in healthcare professionals' behaviours and patient outcomes. The only intervention shown to improve healthcare professionals' behaviour and modestly patient outcomes was email-delivered, spaced education. Future research should evaluate interactive, simulation-based and spaced forms of digital education and report on outcomes such as skills, behaviour, patient outcomes and cost.

Keywords: Clinical practice guidelines; Digital education; Health professions education; Systematic review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Study flow diagram
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Risk of bias summary
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Forest plot of knowledge outcome comparing digital education on clinical practice guidelines to no intervention or traditional learning
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Medicine Io . Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2001. - PubMed
    1. Bighelli I, Ostuzzi G, Girlanda F, Cipriani A, Becker T, Koesters M, et al. Implementation of treatment guidelines for specialist mental health care. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;12:CD009780. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Grimshaw JM, Russell IT. Effect of clinical guidelines on medical practice: a systematic review of rigorous evaluations. Lancet. 1993;342(8883):1317–1322. doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(93)92244-N. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Woolf SH, Grol R, Hutchinson A, Eccles M, Grimshaw J. Potential benefits, limitations, and harms of clinical guidelines. BMJ. 1999;318:527–530. doi: 10.1136/bmj.318.7182.527. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lobach DF, Hammond WE. Computerized decision support based on a clinical practice guideline improves compliance with care standards. Arm J Med. 1997;102(1):89–98. doi: 10.1016/S0002-9343(96)00382-8. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types