A Randomised Controlled Trial Comparing the Effect of E-learning, with a Taught Workshop, on the Knowledge and Search Skills of Health Professionals
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objective - The aim of the trial was to establish whether there is a significant difference in terms of knowledge and skills, between self-directed learning using a web-based resource, compared with a classroom based interactive workshop, for teaching health professionals how to search. The outcomes measured were knowledge of databases and study designs, and search skills.
 
 Methods - The study design was a randomised controlled trial (RCT). 17 health professionals were randomised into one of two groups – one group (EG) received access to a search-skills web resource, and the other group received a search workshop (WG) taught by a librarian. Participants completed pre- and post-intervention tests involving multiple choice questions and practical searching using clinical scenarios..
 
 Results - 9 WG and 6 EG participants completed both pre-and post-intervention tests. The test results were blindly marked using a score chart developed with two other librarians. For question formulation and devising a search strategy, all participants obtained a score that was the same or better after receiving the intervention (both WG and EG), but statistical analysis showed that the only significant outcomes were for the WG devising a search strategy (p=0.01) and preferring to search using MeSH after receiving the taught workshop (p=0.02). The Mann-Whitney test showed there were no significant differences in any of the outcomes (p>0.05), between the WG and the EG. The statistical analyses must be viewed with caution due to the small sample size.
 
 Conclusions - There were no significant differences in knowledge of databases and study design, or search skills, when the WG and the EG were compared. Although many participants obtained a score that was higher post-intervention, only devising a search strategy and preferring to search using MeSH were significant for the WG. The question of whether a taught workshop and an e-learning module are of equal effectiveness in teaching search skills, is an important one for health librarians involved in user education, and was a justifiable topic to propose and conduct research. The fact that the results are mainly inconclusive due to the small sample size is disappointing, but does not diminish the importance of conducting the study.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,013 | 0,008 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,013 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».