Claims

Direct effects of digital learning on patient outcomes are rarely studied and not consistently detected

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review 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? In six articles studying patient-level outcomes, two cluster-randomized trials of online training found reduced patient preference for antibiotics (relative risk 0.48 and, for combined interventions, 0.38), while three found no effects on prescribing errors. → Bakkum 2019

Evidence

Bakkum 2019

Bakkum, M.J., Tichelaar, J., Wellink, A., Richir, M.C. & van Agtmael, M.A. (2019). Digital Learning to Improve Safe and Effective Prescribing: A Systematic Review. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpt.1549

q3 · i? · review · r3

Review synthesis of six articles reporting patient-level outcomes (Kirkpatrick level IV). A cluster-randomized trial of online shared decision-making training found "a relative risk of antibiotics being preferred by the patient of 0.48 (95% confidence interval 0.34–0.68)"; a combined CRP-test and communication-training trial reported RR 0.38 (95% CI 0.25–0.55).

"One found a relative risk of antibiotics being preferred by the patient of 0.48 (95% confidence interval 0.34–0.68) after an online training on shared decision making."

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.