Lena Nordheim

Comparison of directed and self‐directed learning in evidence‐based medicine: a randomised controlled trial

Objectives  To compare 2 educational pro‐ grammes for teaching evidence‐based medicine (EBM).

Medical Students’ and Tutors’ Experiences of Directed and Self-Directed Learning Programs in Evidence-Based Medicine A Qualitative Evaluation Accompanying a Randomized Controlled Trial

This qualitative study aims to interpret the results of a randomized controlled trial comparing two educational programs (directed learning and self-directed learning) in evidence-based medicine (EBM) for medical students at the University of Oslo from 2002 to 2003. There is currently very little comparative educational research in this field. In the trial, no statistically significant differences between the study groups were shown for any outcomes considered (EBM knowledge, skills, and attitudes). Further analysis suggests that main reason for the negative trial results was that the majority of students learned equally effectively, whichever program they received, although implementation of the educational programs was not complete because of varying attendance. This study illustrates a stepwise evaluation model that might be useful in evaluating other socially complex interventions.

Effect of telemedicine follow-up care of leg and foot ulcers: a systematic review.

BackgroundLeg ulcers and diabetes-related foot ulcers are frequent and costly complications of their underlying diseases and thus represent a critical issue for public health. Since the population is aging, the prevalence of these conditions will probably increase considerably and require more resources. Treatment of leg and foot ulcers often demands frequent contact with the health care system, may pose great burden on the patient, and involves follow-up in both primary and specialist care. Telemedicine provides potential for more effective care management of leg and foot ulcers. The objective of this systematic review of the literature was to assess the effect of telemedicine follow-up care on clinical, behavioral or organizational outcomes among patients with leg and foot ulcers.MethodsWe searched Ovid MEDLINE (1980-), Ovid EMBASE (1980-), Clinical Trials in the Cochrane Library (via Wiley), Ebsco CINAHL with Fulltext (1981-) and SveMed + (1977-) up to May 2014 for relevant articles. We considered randomized controlled trials, non-randomized trials, controlled before-after studies and prospective cohort studies for inclusion and selected studies according to predefined criteria. Three reviewers independently assessed the included studies using the Cochrane Collaboration risk-of-bias tool. We performed a narrative synthesis of results and assessed the strength of evidence for each outcome using GRADE (grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluation).ResultsOnly one non-randomized study was included. The study (n = 140) measured the effect of real-time interactive video consultation compared with face-to-face follow-up on healing time, adjusted healing ratio and the number of ulcers at 12 weeks among patients with neuropathic forefoot ulcerations. There were no statistically significant differences in results of the different outcomes between patients receiving telemedicine and traditional follow-up. We assessed the study to have a high risk of bias.ConclusionsThere is insufficient evidence available to unambiguously determine whether telemedicine consultation of leg and foot ulcers is as effective as traditional follow-up.

The Cochrane review of assistive technology for rheumatoid arthritis

AIM The aim of this systematic review is to summarise the available evidence on the effectiveness of assistive technology for adults with rheumatoid arthritis in terms of improving functional ability and reducing pain, and to assess potential adverse effects related to device use. METHODS In this review, randomised controlled trials, clinical controlled trials, controlled before and after studies and interrupted time series available through systematic searches (electronic databases, grey literature, contact with authors, reference lists) up to October 2008 were included. Two reviewers independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed the validity of included trials, and extracted data. Investigators were contacted to obtain missing information. RESULTS Out of 7177 hits, 13 articles were reviewed in full text and only one trial was finally included (N.=29). The study was a randomised crossover trial, in which the use of an eye drop device was compared to a standard bottle in people with rheumatoid arthritis suffering from persistent dry eyes. The results show that the eye drop device improved application of eye drops and prevented adverse effects in terms of touching the eye with the bottle tip. The study was considered to have low quality of evidence. CONCLUSION Since only one trial met the inclusion criteria for this review, there is very limited evidence for the effect of assistive technology for adults with rheumatoid arthritis. There is an urgent need for high-quality research in this field, in order to reach sufficient evidence on the effectiveness of this commonly used intervention.

Establishing a library of resources to help people understand key concepts in assessing treatment claims-The "Critical thinking and Appraisal Resource Library" (CARL).

Background People are frequently confronted with untrustworthy claims about the effects of treatments. Uncritical acceptance of these claims can lead to poor, and sometimes dangerous, treatment decisions, and wasted time and money. Resources to help people learn to think critically about treatment claims are scarce, and they are widely scattered. Furthermore, very few learning-resources have been assessed to see if they improve knowledge and behavior. Objectives Our objectives were to develop the Critical thinking and Appraisal Resource Library (CARL). This library was to be in the form of a database containing learning resources for those who are responsible for encouraging critical thinking about treatment claims, and was to be made available online. We wished to include resources for groups we identified as ‘intermediaries’ of knowledge, i.e. teachers of schoolchildren, undergraduates and graduates, for example those teaching evidence-based medicine, or those communicating treatment claims to the public. In selecting resources, we wished to draw particular attention to those resources that had been formally evaluated, for example, by the creators of the resource or independent research groups. Methods CARL was populated with learning-resources identified from a variety of sources—two previously developed but unmaintained inventories; systematic reviews of learning-interventions; online and database searches; and recommendations by members of the project group and its advisors. The learning-resources in CARL were organised by ‘Key Concepts’ needed to judge the trustworthiness of treatment claims, and were made available online by the James Lind Initiative in Testing Treatments interactive (TTi) English (www.testingtreatments.org/category/learning-resources).TTi English also incorporated the database of Key Concepts and the Claim Evaluation Tools developed through the Informed Healthcare Choices (IHC) project (informedhealthchoices.org). Results We have created a database of resources called CARL, which currently contains over 500 open-access learning-resources in a variety of formats: text, audio, video, webpages, cartoons, and lesson materials. These are aimed primarily at ‘Intermediaries’, that is, ‘teachers’, ‘communicators’, ‘advisors’, ‘researchers’, as well as for independent ‘learners’. The resources included in CARL are currently accessible at www.testingtreatments.org/category/learning-resources Conclusions We hope that ready access to CARL will help to promote the critical thinking about treatment claims, needed to help improve healthcare choices.