Implement Sci. 2010 Jan 4;5:1. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-5-1.
The implementation of new medical knowledge into general practice is a complex process. Blended learning may offer an effective and efficient educational intervention to reduce the knowledge-to-practice gap. The aim of this study was to compare knowledge acquisition about dementia management between a blended learning approach using online modules in addition to quality circles (QCs) and QCs alone.
In this cluster-randomised trial with QCs as clusters and general practitioners (GPs) as participants, 389 GPs from 26 QCs in the western part of Germany were invited to participate. Data on the GPs' knowledge were obtained at three points in time by means of a questionnaire survey. Primary outcome was the knowledge gain before and after the interventions. A subgroup analysis of the users of the online modules was performed.
166 GPs were available for analysis and filled out a knowledge test at least two times. A significant increase of knowledge was found in both groups that indicated positive learning effects of both approaches. However, there was no significant difference between the groups. A subgroup analysis of the GPs who self-reported that they had actually used the online modules showed that they had a significant increase in their knowledge scores.
A blended learning approach was not superior to a QCs approach for improving knowledge about dementia management. However, a subgroup of GPs who were motivated to actually use the online modules had a gain in knowledge.
Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN36550981.
将新的医学知识应用于全科实践是一个复杂的过程。混合式学习可能是一种有效且高效的教育干预措施，可以缩小知识与实践之间的差距。本研究旨在比较使用在线模块和质量圈（QC）相结合的混合式学习方法与单纯使用 QC 方法在痴呆症管理知识获取方面的效果。
本研究采用 QC 为单位的整群随机试验，以全科医生（GP）为参与者，邀请德国西部 26 个 QC 中的 389 名 GP 参与。通过问卷调查在三个时间点获得 GP 知识的数据。主要结局是干预前后的知识增长。对在线模块使用者进行了亚组分析。
166 名 GP 可用于分析，至少两次填写了知识测试。两组均显示出知识显著增加，表明两种方法均有积极的学习效果。然而，两组之间没有显著差异。对自我报告实际使用在线模块的 GP 进行的亚组分析表明，他们的知识得分有显著提高。
混合式学习方法并不优于 QC 方法，无法提高痴呆症管理知识。然而，有动力实际使用在线模块的 GP 亚组在知识方面有了提高。
当前对照试验 ISRCTN36550981。
