More interactive digital education interventions mostly show no advantage over less interactive forms, with attrition and low usage challenging low-interactivity interventions¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · quant-synthesisr3·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 three studies measuring knowledge comparing more to less interactive digital education, only the spaced education game favoured the more interactive form (SMD 0.81, 95% CI 0.43–1.20). → Tudor Car Lorainne 2019
q3 i? Low-interactivity interventions reported high attrition and limited resource usage, while more interactive interventions reported lower attrition and higher engagement. → 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 five RCTs comparing more to less interactive digital education. Four used online modules with feedback; only the spaced education game favoured the more interactive form. Most comparisons showed no statistically significant difference.
"Of three studies measuring knowledge [16, 46, 47], only one study on spaced education game favoured intervention (SMD = 0.81, 95% CI 0.43–1.20, moderate quality of evidence) [46]."
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
The review's discussion reports that studies of websites and online modules had high attrition, participants found a feedback module too time-demanding, and in some studies much of the provided material was never accessed; more interactive interventions showed lower attrition and higher engagement.
"Conversely, more interactive interventions reported lower attrition rates and higher participants' engagement [39, 44]."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Email-delivered spaced education is the only intervention type shown to improve both clinician behaviour and patient outcomes for guideline adoption
- Digital education on clinical practice guidelines produces little or no change in healthcare professionals' behaviour, except email-delivered spaced education — related
- Digital education on clinical practice guidelines improves healthcare professionals' knowledge more than no intervention (pooled SMD 0.85) — related
- In the few trials comparing them, virtual patients showed no significant knowledge differences versus other digital education, and skills differences in only one of three studies — related
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.