Online training was more effective than written manuals for knowledge (SMD 0.99) but showed no difference for clinical behaviour, at very low evidence quality¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesisr2·q2·i3large
Currency · newest study 2017 · 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.
q2 i3 For knowledge (3 RCTs, n = 180) online training was more effective than a written manual (SMD 0.99; 95% CI 0.02 to 1.96), very low quality evidence. → Richmond Helen 2017
q2 i? For clinical behaviour (2 RCTs, n = 114) online training was no different to a written manual (SMD 0.09; 95% CI -0.27 to 0.46), very low quality evidence. → Richmond Helen 2017
Evidence¶
Richmond Helen 2017¶
Richmond Helen, Copsey Bethan, Hall Amanda M., Davies David, Lamb Sarah E. (2017). A systematic review and meta-analysis of online versus alternative methods for training licensed health care professionals to deliver clinical interventions. BMC Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-017-1047-4
q2 · i3 · quant-synthesis · r2
Random-effects meta-analysis of three RCTs comparing online training with written manuals in licensed health professionals. Knowledge favoured online with printed effect size SMD 0.99 (95% CI 0.02, 1.96), a large effect by the article's own thresholds; clinical behaviour showed no difference (SMD 0.09). All assessments were study-derived self-assessments; estimates judged very low quality.
"For knowledge (3 RCTs, n = 180), we found very low quality evidence that online training was more effective than a manual (SMD 0.99; 95% CI: 0.02, 1.96). For clinical behaviour, we found very low quality evidence that online training was no different to using a written manual (SMD 0.09; 95% CI: -0.27, 0.46)."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- The evidence base on online versus alternative training for licensed health professionals is limited by small samples, high risk of bias, and imprecise effect estimates
- Online training shows no difference from taught lectures for knowledge or practical skills in licensed health professionals, at very low evidence quality — related
- Online training shows no difference from interactive workshops for knowledge, practical skills, clinical behaviour, self-efficacy, or satisfaction in licensed health professionals, at low or very low evidence quality — related
- Digital education on clinical practice guidelines improves healthcare professionals' knowledge more than no intervention (pooled SMD 0.85) — related
- Digital education on clinical practice guidelines is at least as effective as traditional learning for knowledge (pooled SMD 0.23, non-significant) — 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.