• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Medical teacher >Are journal clubs effective in supporting evidence-based decision making? A systematic review. BEME Guide No. 16.
【24h】

Are journal clubs effective in supporting evidence-based decision making? A systematic review. BEME Guide No. 16.

机译：期刊俱乐部在支持基于证据的决策方面是否有效？系统的审查。 BEME指南第16号。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

BACKGROUND: Journal clubs (JCs) are a common form of interactive education in health care aiming to promote the uptake of research evidence into practice, but their effectiveness has not been established. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aimed to determine whether the JC is an effective intervention in supporting clinical decision making. METHODS: We searched for studies which evaluated whether clubs promote changes in learner reaction, attitudes, knowledge, skills, behaviour or patient outcomes. We included undergraduate, postgraduate and practice JCs and excluded studies evaluating video/internet meetings or single meetings. RESULTS: Eighteen studies were included. Studies reported improvements in reading behaviour (N = 5/11), confidence in critical appraisal (N = 7/7), critical appraisal test scores (N = 5/7) and ability to use findings (N = 5/7). No studies reported on patient outcomes. Sixteen studies used self-reported measures, but only four studies used validated tests. Interventions were too heterogeneous to allow pooling. Realist synthesis identified potentially 'active educational ingredients', including mentoring, brief training in clinical epidemiology, structured critical appraisal tools, adult-learning principles, multifaceted teaching approaches and integration of the JC with other clinical and academic activities. CONCLUSION: The effectiveness of JCs in supporting evidence-based decision making is not clear. Better reporting of the intervention and a mixed methods approach to evaluating active ingredients are needed in order to understand how JCs may support evidence-based practice.
机译：背景：期刊俱乐部（JCs）是医疗保健中互动教育的一种常见形式，旨在促进研究证据在实践中的应用，但尚未确定其有效性。目的：本系统综述旨在确定JC是否是支持临床决策的有效干预措施。方法：我们搜索了评估俱乐部是否促进学习者反应，态度，知识，技能，行为或患者结果变化的研究。我们纳入了本科生，研究生JC和实践JC，但排除了评估视频/互联网会议或单一会议的研究。结果：包括十八项研究。研究表明阅读行为得到改善（N = 5/11），对批判性评估的信心（N = 7/7），批判性评估测试分数（N = 5/7）和使用调查结果的能力（N = 5/7）。没有关于患者预后的研究报告。十六项研究使用自我报告的量度，但只有四项研究使用经过验证的测试。干预措施过于多样化，无法合并。现实主义者的综合发现了潜在的“积极的教育成分”，包括指导，临床流行病学的简短培训，结构化的评估工具，成人学习原则，多方面的教学方法以及JC与其他临床和学术活动的整合。结论：JC在支持基于证据的决策中的有效性尚不清楚。为了更好地了解JC如何支持循证实践，需要更好地报告干预措施并采用混合方法评估活性成分。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号