Militello Lisa K, Gance-Cleveland Bonnie, Aldrich Heather, Kamal Rabah
Hearst Predoctoral Fellow, Arizona State University, Aurora, CO, USA.
Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2014 Jun;11(3):177-86. doi: 10.1111/wvn.12041. Epub 2014 May 27.
Healthcare providers use continuing education (CE) to meet professional development requirements and to ensure optimal patient care. There has been a dramatic increase in computer-mediated CE (CMCE) programs.
To synthesize the literature regarding the current state of the science on the efficacy of CMCE for healthcare professionals, particularly as it relates to provider learning and patient outcomes. Specifically, this review assesses the methodological quality of existing systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
A literature search was conducted using Cochrane Library, PubMed, and CINAHL. Review articles evaluating the efficacy of CMCE for healthcare providers were included. Publications were searched between 2002 and 2013 and limited to those printed in English. An objective measurement tool, AMSTAR, was used to assess the methodological quality of each review. AMSTAR is an 11-item instrument, in which individual criteria were evaluated and a composite score of all 11 components was determined for each review. Outcomes of each review were also categorized based on Kirkpatrick's levels for summative evaluation: (i) Learner satisfaction, (ii) Learning outcomes, (iii) Performance improvement, (iv) Patient/health outcomes.
Starting with 231 articles, 11 met the inclusion criteria for this evaluation. AMSTAR quality scores of the reviews ranged from 7 to 11, with 11 indicating the strongest quality. Although weak research design of many studies and heterogeneous topics covered make summative evaluations difficult, there were some common themes covered in the articles reviewed. Healthcare providers were largely satisfied with using CMCE programs. Overall, the studies comparing CMCE to traditional CE methods found the impact on learning outcomes to be comparable, with neither method necessarily superior. Additionally, all reviews lacked evaluation of practice outcomes.
While results of this review show promise for CMCE, further evaluation and more rigorously conducted research is necessary. Particular focus is needed to determine the effects of CMCE on health outcomes.
医疗保健提供者通过继续教育(CE)来满足专业发展要求并确保提供最佳的患者护理。计算机介导的继续教育(CMCE)项目急剧增加。
综合有关CMCE对医疗保健专业人员有效性的科学现状的文献,特别是其与提供者学习和患者结局的关系。具体而言,本综述评估现有系统评价和荟萃分析的方法学质量。
使用Cochrane图书馆、PubMed和CINAHL进行文献检索。纳入评估CMCE对医疗保健提供者有效性的综述文章。检索2002年至2013年间的出版物,并限于英文印刷品。使用一种客观测量工具AMSTAR来评估每篇综述的方法学质量。AMSTAR是一个包含11个条目的工具,对各个标准进行评估,并为每篇综述确定所有11个组成部分的综合得分。每篇综述的结果也根据柯克帕特里克的总结性评估水平进行分类:(i)学习者满意度,(ii)学习成果,(iii)绩效改进,(iv)患者/健康结局。
从231篇文章开始,11篇符合本次评估的纳入标准。这些综述的AMSTAR质量得分在7到11之间,11分表示质量最强。尽管许多研究的研究设计薄弱且涵盖的主题各异,使得总结性评估困难,但在所审查的文章中仍有一些共同主题。医疗保健提供者对使用CMCE项目基本满意。总体而言,将CMCE与传统CE方法进行比较的研究发现,对学习成果的影响相当,两种方法都不一定更具优势。此外,所有综述都缺乏对实践结局的评估。
虽然本次综述的结果显示CMCE有前景,但仍需要进一步评估和更严格的研究。需要特别关注确定CMCE对健康结局的影响。