Training on the use of a bespoke continuing professional development framework improves the quality of CPD records

Do randomised controlled trials relevant to pharmacy meet best practice standards for quality conduct and reporting? A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Evidence-based pharmacy practice requires a dependable evidence base. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard of high-quality primary research, and tools exist to assist researchers in conducting and reporting high-quality RCTs. This review aimed to explore whether RCTs relevant to pharmacy are conducted and reported in line with Cochrane risk of bias and CONSORT standards, respectively.

METHODS

A MEDLINE search identified potential papers. After screening of titles, abstracts and full texts, the 50 most recent papers were reviewed and assessment of bias according to Cochrane domains and compliance with CONSORT checklist items was recorded. Each domain of the Cochrane tool and CONSORT checklist item and each article were given a percentage score, reported as median and interquartile range (IQR). Correlation between quality of conduct, quality of reporting, continent of origin, and journal impact factor was conducted using the R² statistic. The median domain score for risk of bias by paper according to the Cochrane risk of bias tool was 53.0% (IQR 38.5-68.5), while the median compliance score by paper for the CONSORT checklist was 64.0% (IQR 36.0-94.0%).

KEY FINDINGS

The median Cochrane domain and median CONSORT item completion scores, respectively, were 50.0% (IQR 33.3-66.7%) and 59.5% (IQR 52.0-70.3%). The highest risk of bias was associated with allocation concealment and blinding, and the least well-reported items were randomisation details, sequence generation and allocation concealment. A positive relationship between conduct and reporting of RCTs was found (R²  = 0.75), while no correlation was found between quality of conduct or quality of reporting and journal impact factor, correlation coefficients (R²  = 0.06 and R²  = 0.05, respectively).

SUMMARY

This review identified that issues related to randomisation and blinding are often inadequately conducted or not comprehensively reported by researchers conducting pharmacy relevant RCTs, providing useful information for education and future research.

Offline Digital Education for Postregistration Health Professions: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis by the Digital Health Education Collaboration

Background

The shortage and disproportionate distribution of health care workers worldwide is further aggravated by the inadequacy of training programs, difficulties in implementing conventional curricula, deficiencies in learning infrastructure, or a lack of essential equipment. Offline digital education has the potential to improve the quality of health professions education.

Objective

The primary objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the effectiveness of offline digital education compared with various controls in improving learners’ knowledge, skills, attitudes, satisfaction, and patient-related outcomes. The secondary objectives were (1) to assess the cost-effectiveness of the interventions and (2) to assess adverse effects of the interventions on patients and learners.

Methods

We searched 7 electronic databases and 2 trial registries for randomized controlled trials published between January 1990 and August 2017. We used Cochrane systematic review methods.

Results

A total of 27 trials involving 4618 individuals were included in this systematic review. Meta-analyses found that compared with no intervention, offline digital education (CD-ROM) may increase knowledge in nurses (standardized mean difference [SMD]=1.88; 95% CI 1.14 to 2.62; participants=300; studies=3; I²=80%; low certainty evidence). A meta-analysis of 2 studies found that compared with no intervention, the effects of offline digital education (computer-assisted training [CAT]) on nurses and physical therapists’ knowledge were uncertain (SMD 0.55; 95% CI –0.39 to 1.50; participants=64; I²=71%; very low certainty evidence). A meta-analysis of 2 studies found that compared with traditional learning, a PowerPoint presentation may improve the knowledge of patient care personnel and pharmacists (SMD 0.76; 95% CI 0.29 to 1.23; participants=167; I²=54%; low certainty evidence). A meta-analysis of 4 studies found that compared with traditional training, the effects of computer-assisted training on skills in community (mental health) therapists, nurses, and pharmacists were uncertain (SMD 0.45; 95% CI –0.35 to 1.25; participants=229; I²=88%; very low certainty evidence). A meta-analysis of 4 studies found that compared with traditional training, offline digital education may have little effect or no difference on satisfaction scores in nurses and mental health therapists (SMD –0.07; 95% CI –0.42 to 0.28, participants=232; I²=41%; low certainty evidence). A total of 2 studies found that offline digital education may have little or no effect on patient-centered outcomes when compared with blended learning. For skills and attitudes, the results were mixed and inconclusive. None of the studies reported adverse or unintended effects of the interventions. Only 1 study reported costs of interventions. The risk of bias was predominantly unclear and the certainty of the evidence ranged from low to very low.

Conclusions

There is some evidence to support the effectiveness of offline digital education in improving learners’ knowledge and insufficient quality and quantity evidence for the other outcomes. Future high-quality studies are needed to increase generalizability and inform use of this modality of education.