Van Hoof Thomas J, Miller Nicole E
J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2014 Winter;34(1):83-6. doi: 10.1002/chp.21212.
Systematic reviews published in the quality improvement and continuing education literature have noted that the lack of standardized terminology for categorizing and describing various interventions in published studies is a major obstacle to drawing conclusions about their effectiveness. A case in point is practice facilitation and educational outreach. Although they are 2 long-standing interventions with some common characteristics, researchers studying 1 intervention may be unfamiliar with the other given the relatively separate literatures that have developed around both sets of terms. A comparison of articles included in recent systematic reviews of practice facilitation and educational outreach revealed a small but significant overlap of articles, journals, key words, and noncorresponding authors, but no overlap of corresponding authors. Based on these findings, the authors join the call for the creation of an intervention taxonomy and its application to these and other continuing education interventions.
发表在质量改进和继续教育文献中的系统评价指出，已发表研究中缺乏用于分类和描述各种干预措施的标准化术语，这是就其有效性得出结论的主要障碍。一个恰当的例子是实践促进和教育推广。尽管它们是两种具有一些共同特征的长期干预措施，但鉴于围绕这两组术语发展起来的相对独立的文献，研究其中一种干预措施的研究人员可能对另一种并不熟悉。对近期实践促进和教育推广系统评价中纳入的文章进行比较发现，文章、期刊、关键词和非通讯作者存在少量但显著的重叠，但通讯作者没有重叠。基于这些发现，作者加入了创建干预分类法并将其应用于这些及其他继续教育干预措施的呼吁。
