Effectiveness of educational interventions for improving healthcare professionals' information literacy: A systematic review.

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q2 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE Health Information and Libraries Journal Pub Date : 2025-02-02 DOI:10.1111/hir.12562
Mauricette Moling Lee, Xiaowen Lin, Eng Sing Lee, Helen Elizabeth Smith, Lorainne Tudor Car
{"title":"Effectiveness of educational interventions for improving healthcare professionals' information literacy: A systematic review.","authors":"Mauricette Moling Lee, Xiaowen Lin, Eng Sing Lee, Helen Elizabeth Smith, Lorainne Tudor Car","doi":"10.1111/hir.12562","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>It is unclear which educational interventions effectively improve healthcare professionals' information literacy.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>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><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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><p><strong>Results: </strong>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; I<sup>2</sup> = 0%; moderate certainty evidence). There were limited findings on the knowledge, skills, satisfaction, and behaviour outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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>","PeriodicalId":47580,"journal":{"name":"Health Information and Libraries Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Information and Libraries Journal","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Health Information and Libraries Journal
Health Information and Libraries Journal INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
10.50%
发文量
52
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
期刊最新文献
Effectiveness of educational interventions for improving healthcare professionals' information literacy: A systematic review. Understanding how and why users might use NHS repositories: A mixed methods study. Bridging the health information gap among undergraduate university students: The role of academic libraries. Vaccination uptake is influenced by many cues during health information seeking online. Issue Information
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1