Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Sep 15;9(9):CD003030. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003030.pub3.
Educational meetings are used widely by health personnel to provide continuing medical education and to promote implementation of innovations or translate new knowledge to change practice within healthcare systems. Previous reviews have concluded that educational meetings can result in small changes in behaviour, but that effects vary considerably. Investigations into which characteristics of educational meetings might lead to greater impact have yielded varying results, and factors that might explain heterogeneity in effects remain unclear. This is the second update of this Cochrane Review.
• To assess the effects of educational meetings on professional practice and healthcare outcomes • To investigate factors that might explain the heterogeneity of these effects SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ERIC, Science Citation Index Expanded (ISI Web of Knowledge), and Social Sciences Citation Index (last search in November 2016).
We sought randomised trials examining the effects of educational meetings on professional practice and patient outcomes.
Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. One review author assessed the certainty of evidence (GRADE) and discussed with a second review author. We included studies in the primary analysis that reported baseline data and that we judged to be at low or unclear risk of bias. For each comparison of dichotomous outcomes, we measured treatment effect as risk difference adjusted for baseline compliance. We expressed adjusted risk difference values as percentages, and we noted that values greater than zero favour educational meetings. For continuous outcomes, we measured treatment effect as per cent change relative to the control group mean post test, adjusted for baseline performance; we expressed values as percentages and noted that values greater than zero favour educational meetings. We report means and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and, when appropriate, medians and interquartile ranges to facilitate comparisons to previous versions of this review. We analysed professional and patient outcomes separately and analysed 22 variables that were hypothesised a priori to explain heterogeneity. We explored heterogeneity by using univariate meta-regression and by inspecting violin plots.
We included 215 studies involving more than 28,167 health professionals, including 142 new studies for this update. Educational meetings as the single intervention or the main component of a multi-faceted intervention compared with no intervention • Probably slightly improve compliance with desired practice when compared with no intervention (65 comparisons, 7868 health professionals for dichotomous outcomes (adjusted risk difference 6.79%, 95% CI 6.62% to 6.97%; median 4.00%; interquartile range 0.29% to 13.00%); 28 comparisons, 2577 health professionals for continuous outcomes (adjusted relative percentage change 44.36%, 95% CI 41.98% to 46.75%; median 20.00%; interquartile range 6.00% to 65.00%)) • Probably slightly improve patient outcomes compared with no intervention (15 comparisons, 2530 health professionals for dichotomous outcomes (adjusted risk difference 3.30%, 95% CI 3.10% to 3.51%; median 0.10%; interquartile range 0.00% to 4.00%); 28 comparisons, 2294 health professionals for continuous outcomes (adjusted relative percentage change 8.35%, 95% CI 7.46% to 9.24%; median 2.00%; interquartile range -1.00% to 21.00%)) The certainty of evidence for this comparison is moderate. Educational meetings alone compared with other interventions • May improve compliance with desired practice when compared with other interventions (6 studies, 1402 health professionals for dichotomous outcomes (adjusted risk difference 9.99%, 95% CI 9.47% to 10.52%; median 16.5%; interquartile range 0.80% to 16.50%); 2 studies, 72 health professionals for continuous outcomes (adjusted relative percentage change 12.00%, 95% CI 9.16% to 14.84%; median 12.00%; interquartile range 0.00% to 24.00%)) No studies met the inclusion criteria for patient outcome measurements. The certainty of evidence for this comparison is low. Interactive educational meetings compared with didactic (lecture-based) educational meetings • We are uncertain of effects on compliance with desired practice (3 studies, 370 health professionals for dichotomous outcomes; 1 study, 192 health professionals for continuous outcomes) or on patient outcomes (1 study, 54 health professionals for continuous outcomes), as the certainty of evidence is very low Any other comparison of different formats and durations of educational meetings • We are uncertain of effects on compliance with desired practice (1 study, 19 health professionals for dichotomous outcomes; 1 study, 20 health professionals for continuous outcomes) or on patient outcomes (1 study, 113 health professionals for continuous outcomes), as the certainty of evidence is very low. Factors that might explain heterogeneity of effects Meta-regression suggests that larger estimates of effect are associated with studies judged to be at high risk of bias, with studies that had unit of analysis errors, and with studies in which the unit of analysis was the provider rather than the patient. Improved compliance with desired practice may be associated with: shorter meetings; poor baseline compliance; better attendance; shorter follow-up; professionals provided with additional take-home material; explicit building of educational meetings on theory; targeting of low- versus high-complexity behaviours; targeting of outcomes with high versus low importance; goal of increasing rather than decreasing behaviour; teaching by opinion leaders; and use of didactic versus interactive teaching methods. Pre-specified exploratory analyses of behaviour change techniques suggest that improved compliance with desired practice may be associated with use of a greater number of behaviour change techniques; goal-setting; provision of feedback; provision for social comparison; and provision for social support. Compliance may be decreased by the use of follow-up prompts, skills training, and barrier identification techniques.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared with no intervention, educational meetings as the main component of an intervention probably slightly improve professional practice and, to a lesser extent, patient outcomes. Educational meetings may improve compliance with desired practice to a greater extent than other kinds of behaviour change interventions, such as text messages, fees, or office systems. Our findings suggest that multi-strategy approaches might positively influence the effects of educational meetings. Additional trials of educational meetings compared with no intervention are unlikely to change the review findings; therefore we will not further update this review comparison in the future. However, we note that randomised trials comparing different types of education are needed.
教育会议被广泛应用于卫生人员,以提供继续医学教育,并促进创新的实施或转化新知识,以改变医疗系统内的实践。之前的综述得出结论,教育会议可以导致行为的微小变化,但效果差异很大。对于可能导致更大影响的教育会议的哪些特征进行的调查,结果各不相同,并且解释效果异质性的因素仍不清楚。这是本 Cochrane 综述的第二次更新。
评估教育会议对专业实践和医疗结果的影响;探讨可能解释这些效果异质性的因素。
我们检索了 Cochrane 图书馆中心对照试验数据库(CENTRAL)、MEDLINE、Embase、ERIC、科学引文索引扩展版(ISI Web of Knowledge)和社会科学引文索引(最后一次检索是在 2016 年 11 月)。
我们寻求评估教育会议对专业实践和患者结局影响的随机试验。
两名综述作者独立提取数据并评估偏倚风险。一名综述作者评估证据的确定性(GRADE)并与第二名综述作者讨论。我们纳入了报告基线数据且我们判断为低或不确定偏倚风险的研究。对于二分类结局的每个比较,我们测量了调整基线依从性后的治疗效果,表现为风险差异。我们将调整后的风险差异值表示为百分比,并指出正值有利于教育会议。对于连续结局,我们测量了相对于对照组的治疗效果,表现为调整基线表现后的百分比变化;我们将值表示为百分比,并指出正值有利于教育会议。我们报告平均值和 95%置信区间(CI),并在适当情况下报告中位数和四分位间距,以方便与本综述的前几个版本进行比较。我们分别分析专业和患者结局,并分析了 22 个假设可以解释异质性的变量。我们通过单变量荟萃回归和检查小提琴图来分析异质性。
我们纳入了 215 项研究,涉及超过 28167 名卫生专业人员,其中包括 142 项新研究。教育会议作为单一干预措施或多方面干预措施的主要组成部分,与无干预措施相比:
可能略微提高与期望实践一致的依从性(65 项比较,7868 名卫生专业人员的二分类结局(调整风险差异 6.79%,95%置信区间 6.62%至 6.97%;中位数 4.00%;四分位间距 0.29%至 13.00%);28 项比较,2577 名卫生专业人员的连续结局(调整后的相对百分比变化 44.36%,95%置信区间 41.98%至 46.75%;中位数 20.00%;四分位间距 6.00%至 65.00%));
可能略微提高患者结局,与无干预措施相比(15 项比较,2530 名卫生专业人员的二分类结局(调整风险差异 3.30%,95%置信区间 3.10%至 3.51%;中位数 0.10%;四分位间距 0.00%至 4.00%);28 项比较,2294 名卫生专业人员的连续结局(调整后的相对百分比变化 8.35%,95%置信区间 7.46%至 9.24%;中位数 2.00%;四分位间距 -1.00%至 21.00%))。该比较的证据确定性为中等。
可能会提高与期望实践一致的依从性,与其他干预措施相比(6 项研究,1402 名卫生专业人员的二分类结局(调整风险差异 9.99%,95%置信区间 9.47%至 10.52%;中位数 16.5%;四分位间距 0.80%至 16.50%);2 项研究,72 名卫生专业人员的连续结局(调整后的相对百分比变化 12.00%,95%置信区间 9.16%至 14.84%;中位数 12.00%;四分位间距 0.00%至 24.00%))。没有研究符合我们对患者结局测量的纳入标准。该比较的证据确定性为低。
互动式教育会议与说教式(讲座式)教育会议相比:
我们不确定对与期望实践一致的依从性(3 项研究,370 名卫生专业人员的二分类结局;1 项研究,192 名卫生专业人员的连续结局)或对患者结局(1 项研究,54 名卫生专业人员的连续结局)的影响,因为证据的确定性非常低。
我们不确定对与期望实践一致的依从性(1 项研究,19 名卫生专业人员的二分类结局;1 项研究,20 名卫生专业人员的连续结局)或对患者结局(1 项研究,113 名卫生专业人员的连续结局)的影响,因为证据的确定性非常低。
可能解释效果异质性的因素
荟萃回归表明,与被判断为高偏倚风险的研究、存在单位分析错误的研究以及以提供者而不是患者为单位分析的研究相比,较大的效应估计值与研究相关。提高与期望实践一致的依从性可能与以下因素有关:会议时间较短;基线依从性较差;更好的出勤率;较短的随访;为参与者提供额外的带回家的材料;教育会议基于理论;针对低复杂度与高复杂度行为;针对具有高或低重要性的结果;旨在增加而不是减少行为;由意见领袖进行教学;以及使用说教式或互动式教学方法。对行为改变技术的预先指定的探索性分析表明,提高与期望实践一致的依从性可能与使用更多的行为改变技术、设定目标、提供反馈、提供社会比较和提供社会支持有关。使用随访提示、技能培训和障碍识别技术可能会降低依从性。
与无干预措施相比,作为干预措施主要组成部分的教育会议可能会略微提高专业实践,并且在较小程度上,提高患者结局。与其他行为改变干预措施(如短信、费用或办公系统)相比,教育会议可能会更大程度地提高与期望实践一致的依从性。我们的研究结果表明,多策略方法可能会对教育会议的效果产生积极影响。因此,我们不太可能进一步更新本综述中无干预措施的比较;因此,我们将不再在未来进一步更新本综述。然而,我们注意到需要随机试验比较不同类型的教育。