Claims

Digital education on clinical practice guidelines produces little or no change in healthcare professionals' behaviour, except email-delivered spaced education

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · quant-synthesis r3 · q3
Currency · newest study 2019 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q3 i? Of nine studies evaluating behaviour change, only the study comparing email-delivered spaced education to no intervention reported improvement (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.69–0.82), sustained at 18 months. → Tudor Car Lorainne 2019 q3 i? Studies comparing digital education to traditional learning (three studies) and more to less interactive digital education (four studies) largely reported no difference in behaviour. → Tudor Car Lorainne 2019 (2)

Evidence

Tudor Car Lorainne 2019

Tudor Car Lorainne, Soong Aijia, Kyaw Bhone Myint, Chua Kee Leng, Low-Beer Naomi, Majeed Azeem. (2019). Health professions digital education on clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review by Digital Health Education collaboration. BMC Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-019-1370-1

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r3

Narrative synthesis of behaviour outcomes across the review's comparisons. The spaced education RCT reported reduced inappropriate PSA screening (RR 0.75); the online module study reported no difference. Behaviour data could not be meta-analysed due to heterogeneity.

"Study on the use of spaced education via emails reported improvement in healthcare professional's behaviour (RR = 0.75, 95% CI 0.69, 0.828) [32]. Conversely, the study on the use of online module and discussions reported no difference in healthcare professionals' behaviour [33]."

Tudor Car Lorainne 2019 (2)

Tudor Car Lorainne, Soong Aijia, Kyaw Bhone Myint, Chua Kee Leng, Low-Beer Naomi, Majeed Azeem. (2019). Health professions digital education on clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review by Digital Health Education collaboration. BMC Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-019-1370-1

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r3

Narrative synthesis: three RCTs comparing digital education with traditional learning found no behaviour difference; four studies comparing more to less interactive digital education also largely reported no difference (Fig. 4).

"Three studies analysed the healthcare professionals' behaviour change and reported no difference between the groups (Additional file 1) [35, 37, 40]."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-01
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.