Randomised Trial of Two Educational Intervention for Improving Evidence-based Practice Knowledge, Atttitudes and Practice

NCT ID: NCT01512823

Last Updated: 2012-02-06

Basic Information

• Recruitment Status: COMPLETED
• Clinical Phase: NA
• Total Enrollment: 58 participants
• Study Classification: INTERVENTIONAL
• Study Start Date: 2007-11-30
• Study Completion Date: 2011-03-31

Brief Summary

This pragmatic randomised controlled trial (RCT) used a two-group parallel design with matched-pair stratification by type (clinician/manager) and knowledge score. The trial aimed to: 1) determine whether an IE was more effective than a DE for improving EBP knowledge, skills and use at 12 weeks, and 2) to investigate the feasibility of conducting a RCT with occupational therapists in a public health setting. Occupational therapists employed by the Western Cape Department of Health (DOH) form,ed the study population(N=98). Fifty-eight consented to participate and were randomly allocated to either an interactive (IE) or a didactic (DE) educational intervention using coin tossing. Data was collected at baseline and 12 weeks The primary outcome was increased EBP knowledge at 12 weeks shown by an improved total knowledge score. Secondary outcomes were improved attitudes and behaviour. Data were collected at the health facilities where participants were employed. Raters for the audit were blinded but participants and the provider could not be blinded.

Thirty participants were allocated to receive the IE and 28 the DE. Twenty-five participants in the IE and 21 in the DE completed the trial and were included in the 12 week analysis. Results revealed no significant difference between the groups in the primary knowledge outcome at 12 weeks. Examination of within-group changes revealed significant improvements in knowledge in both groups (IE: T=4.0, p<0.001; DE: T=12.0, p=0.002), but the IE also showed a significant increase in behaviour (T=64.5, p=0.044) and attitudes on one sub-scale (T=33.0, p=0.039). As the study was powered at 43%, it may have failed to detect significant differences at 12 weeks. Conducting a high-quality RCT was feasible and the risk of bias was assessed as low. The OTEBP trial adds strength to the existing evidence that both didactic and interactive educational interventions can improve knowledge, but it seems that interactive interventions may be more effective for changing behaviour. High-quality pragmatic trials can feasibly be conducted within the public health service

Conditions

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice

Study Design

• Allocation Method: RANDOMIZED
• Intervention Model: PARALLEL
• Blinding Strategy: SINGLE

Study Groups

Interactive educational intervention

Two education sessions (four-hours and two-hours respectively), emailed notes and reminders

Group Type: EXPERIMENTAL

Education

Intervention Type: BEHAVIORAL

Interactive educational intervention:

• 4 hour education session (with notes and 'evidence packs'); presentations, small group discussion tasks and practice of particular skills - 2 hour session (1 week later)
• Emailed notes from second session
• Telephonic/email follow-up (reminders)

Didactic educational intervention:

• 4 hour education session (with notes and 'evidence packs'; questions answered but no discussion or application of skills

Didactic educational intervention

Education alone

Group Type: EXPERIMENTAL

Education

Intervention Type: BEHAVIORAL

Interactive educational intervention:

• 4 hour education session (with notes and 'evidence packs'); presentations, small group discussion tasks and practice of particular skills - 2 hour session (1 week later)
• Emailed notes from second session
• Telephonic/email follow-up (reminders)

Didactic educational intervention:

• 4 hour education session (with notes and 'evidence packs'; questions answered but no discussion or application of skills

Interventions

Education

Interactive educational intervention:

• 4 hour education session (with notes and 'evidence packs'); presentations, small group discussion tasks and practice of particular skills - 2 hour session (1 week later)
• Emailed notes from second session
• Telephonic/email follow-up (reminders)

Didactic educational intervention:

• 4 hour education session (with notes and 'evidence packs'; questions answered but no discussion or application of skills

Intervention Type: BEHAVIORAL

Eligibility Criteria

Inclusion Criteria

• Occupational therapists employed by the Western Cape Department of Health (DOH)
• Working at least 20 hours per week

Exclusion Criteria

• Working at a distance of more than 1½ hours from Cape Town
• Therapists who would be leaving the DOH before December 2008 or taking leave during the time of the intervention

• Minimum Eligible Age: 21 Years
• Maximum Eligible Age: 65 Years
• Eligible Sex: ALL
• Accepts Healthy Volunteers: Yes

Sponsors

National Research Foundation of South Africa

OTHER

Sponsor Role: collaborator

University of Cape Town

OTHER

Sponsor Role: lead

Responsible Party

Helen Buchanan

Principal investigator

Responsibility Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Principal Investigators

Helen Buchanan, PhD

Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

University of Cape Town

Nandi Siegfried, PhD

Role: STUDY_DIRECTOR

South African Cochrane Centre & University of Cape Town

Jennifer Jelsma, PhD

Role: STUDY_DIRECTOR

University of Cape Town

Locations

University of Cape Town

Cape Town, Western Cape, South Africa

Countries

South Africa

References

Buchanan H, Jelsma J, Siegfried N. Measuring evidence-based practice knowledge and skills in occupational therapy--a brief instrument. BMC Med Educ. 2015 Oct 30;15:191. doi: 10.1186/s12909-015-0475-2.

Reference Type: DERIVED

PMID: 26519165 (View on PubMed)

Buchanan H, Siegfried N, Jelsma J, Lombard C. Comparison of an interactive with a didactic educational intervention for improving the evidence-based practice knowledge of occupational therapists in the public health sector in South Africa: a randomised controlled trial. Trials. 2014 Jun 10;15:216. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-15-216.

Reference Type: DERIVED

PMID: 24916176 (View on PubMed)

Other Identifiers

REC REF: 259/2006

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id