Mauricette Moling Lee PhD, Xiaowen Lin BA, Eng Sing Lee PhD, Helen Elizabeth Smith PhD, Lorainne Tudor Car PhD
{"title":"Effectiveness of educational interventions for improving healthcare professionals' information literacy: A systematic review","authors":"Mauricette Moling Lee PhD, Xiaowen Lin BA, Eng Sing Lee PhD, Helen Elizabeth Smith PhD, Lorainne Tudor Car PhD","doi":"10.1111/hir.12562","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>It is unclear which educational interventions effectively improve healthcare professionals' information literacy.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of educational interventions for improving the formulation of answerable clinical questions and the search skills of healthcare professionals.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We followed the Cochrane methodology and reported according to the PRISMA statement. The following databases from inception to November 2022: MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Google Scholar search engine, were searched. Randomised controlled trials and crossover trials on any educational interventions were included. Studies on search tools that are obsolete were excluded.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Ten studies that mainly compared the effectiveness of lectures and bedside education to lectures or no intervention for searching of PubMed and/or MEDLINE, were included. There was evidence for improved attitude towards the intervention favouring lecture with self-directed learning over lecture, bedside education, and computer-assisted self-directed learning (RR: 1.14; 95% CI 1.06–1.23; <i>N</i> = 2 studies; 1064 participants; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 0%; moderate certainty evidence). There were limited findings on the knowledge, skills, satisfaction, and behaviour outcomes.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Future research should include a wider set of outcomes, be reported better and explore the use of digital technology for delivery of educational interventions. Further research should entail well-designed trials with relevant outcomes evaluating novel digital-based educational interventions.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":47580,"journal":{"name":"Health Information and Libraries Journal","volume":"42 2","pages":"131-147"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12723344/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Information and Libraries Journal","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hir.12562","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
It is unclear which educational interventions effectively improve healthcare professionals' information literacy.
Objectives
We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of educational interventions for improving the formulation of answerable clinical questions and the search skills of healthcare professionals.
Methods
We followed the Cochrane methodology and reported according to the PRISMA statement. The following databases from inception to November 2022: MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Google Scholar search engine, were searched. Randomised controlled trials and crossover trials on any educational interventions were included. Studies on search tools that are obsolete were excluded.
Results
Ten studies that mainly compared the effectiveness of lectures and bedside education to lectures or no intervention for searching of PubMed and/or MEDLINE, were included. There was evidence for improved attitude towards the intervention favouring lecture with self-directed learning over lecture, bedside education, and computer-assisted self-directed learning (RR: 1.14; 95% CI 1.06–1.23; N = 2 studies; 1064 participants; I2 = 0%; moderate certainty evidence). There were limited findings on the knowledge, skills, satisfaction, and behaviour outcomes.
Conclusion
Future research should include a wider set of outcomes, be reported better and explore the use of digital technology for delivery of educational interventions. Further research should entail well-designed trials with relevant outcomes evaluating novel digital-based educational interventions.
期刊介绍：
Health Information and Libraries Journal (HILJ) provides practitioners, researchers, and students in library and health professions an international and interdisciplinary forum. Its objectives are to encourage discussion and to disseminate developments at the frontiers of information management and libraries. A major focus is communicating practices that are evidence based both in managing information and in supporting health care. The Journal encompasses: - Identifying health information needs and uses - Managing programmes and services in the changing health environment - Information technology and applications in health - Educating and training health information professionals - Outreach to health user groups
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
