Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Trials
Published in: Trials 1/2020

Open Access 01-12-2020 | Study protocol

Efficacy of a training programme to support the application of the guideline evidence-based health information: study protocol of a randomised controlled trial

Authors: Julia Lühnen, Birte Berger-Höger, Burkhard Haastert, Jana Hinneburg, Jürgen Kasper, Anke Steckelberg

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The evidence-based guideline entitled guideline evidence-based health information emerged from the German Network for Evidence-based Medicine (DNEbM) and was published in February 2017. The guideline addresses providers of health information and its goal is to improve the quality of health information. In addition, we explored the competences of providers of health information and developed a training programme.
The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of a training programme addressing providers of health information to support the application of the guideline evidence-based health information. We expected the intervention to improve the quality of health information in comparison to the provision of the guideline on its own.

Methods/design

The trial uses a superiority randomised control group design with 10 months’ follow-up. Twenty-six providers of health information (groups with up to ten members) will be enrolled to compare the intervention (guideline and training programme) with usual care (a publicly available guideline). The 5-day training programme comprises an evidence-based medicine training module and a module to prepare the application of the guideline. The primary outcome parameter is the quality of the health information. Quality is operationalised as the extent of adherence to the guideline’s recommendations. Each provider will prepare a single health information item informing a health-related decision on a topic freely chosen before randomisation. The quality of this information will be rated using the Mapping Health Information Quality (MAPPinfo) Checklist. An accompanying process evaluation will then be conducted.

Discussion

The study results should show whether the efficacy of the intervention justifies implementation of the training programme to enhance health information developers’ competences in evidence-based medicine and to ensure high-quality evidence-based health information (EBHI) in the long term.

Trial registration

ISRCTN registry, ID: ISRCTN96941060. Registered on 7 March 2019.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
Marteau TM, Dormandy E, Michie S. A measure of informed choice. Health Expect. 2001;4(2):99–108.CrossRef
3.
Rummer A, Scheibler F. Patientenrechte: Informierte Entscheidung als patientenrelevanter Endpunkt. [Patient rights: informed choice as a patient-relevant outcome]. Dtsch Arztebl. 2016;113(8):322–4.
4.
Braun B, Marstedt G. Partizipative Entscheidungsfindung beim Arzt: Anspruch und Wirklichkeit. [Shared decision-making: entitlement and reality]. In: Böcken J, Braun B, Meierjürgen R, editors. Gesundheitsmonitor 2014. Bürgerorientierung im Gesundheitswesen. Gütersloh: Verlag Bertelsmann Stiftung; 2014. p. 107–31.
5.
6.
Bundesgesetzblatt. Gesetz zur Verbesserung der Rechte von Patientinnen und Patienten. [Patients’ Rights Act]. Cologne: Bundesanzeiger. 2013;9:277–282.
7.
Bunge M, Mühlhauser I, Steckelberg A. What constitutes evidence-based patient information? Overview of discussed criteria. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;78(3):316–28.CrossRef
8.
Joseph-Williams N, Newcombe R, Politi M, Durand MA, Sivell S, Stacey D, et al. Toward minimum standards for certifying patient decision aids: a modified Delphi consensus process. Med Decis Mak. 2013;34(6):699–710.CrossRef
9.
Kullenberg de Gaudry D, Grede N, Motschall E, Lins S. Analysis of German nutrition brochures for pregnant women with evidence-based patient information criteria. Patient Educ Couns. 2015;98(2):207–12.CrossRef
10.
Neumeyer-Gromen A, Bodemer N, Müller SM, Gigerenzer G. Ermöglichen Medienberichte und Broschüren informierte Entscheidungen zur Gebärmutterhalskrebsprävention? [Do media reports and brochures enable informed decisions on cervical cancer prevention?]. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2011;54(11):1197.CrossRef
11.
Arbeitsgruppe GPGI. Good practice guidelines for health information. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2016;110–111:85–92.CrossRef
12.
Brouwers MC, Kho ME, Browman GP, Burgers JS, Cluzeau F, Feder G, et al. Development of the AGREE II, part 1: performance, usefulness and areas for improvement. CMAJ. 2010;182(10):1045–52.CrossRef
13.
14.
15.
Eggers V, Kopp I, Spies C. Do we need a reform in the development of guidelines? A commentary. Anaesthesist. 2009;58(7):728–30.CrossRef
16.
Grannis FW Jr. Methodologists are not qualified to write clinical guidelines. Lancet. 2009;374(9698):1325–6 author reply 7.CrossRef
17.
Guyatt G, Akl EA, Hirsh J, Kearon C, Crowther M, Gutterman D, et al. The vexing problem of guidelines and conflict of interest: a potential solution. Ann Intern Med. 2010;152(11):738–41.CrossRef
18.
Hirsh J, Guyatt G. Clinical experts or methodologists to write clinical guidelines? Lancet. 2009;374(9686):273–5.CrossRef
19.
Li HF, Zhang HL, Zhu J. Methodologists are not qualified to write clinical guidelines. Lancet. 2009;374(9698):1326–7 author reply 7.CrossRef
20.
Mühlhauser I. From authority recommendations to fact-sheets—a future for guidelines. Diabetologia. 2010;53(11):2285–8.CrossRef
21.
Sniderman AD, Furberg CD. Why guideline-making requires reform. JAMA. 2009;301(4):429–31.CrossRef
22.
23.
Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Atkins D, Brozek J, Vist G, et al. GRADE guidelines: 2. Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):395–400.CrossRef
24.
Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, Kunz R, Vist G, Brozek J, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):383–94.CrossRef
25.
Köpke S, Mühlhauser I, Gerlach A, Haut A, Haastert B, Möhler R, et al. Effect of a guideline-based multicomponent intervention on use of physical restraints in nursing homes: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2012;307(20):2177–84.CrossRef
26.
Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (IQWIG). Umsetzung von Leitlinien – hinderliche und förderliche Faktoren -Abschlussbericht. [Implementation of guidelines – barriers and facilitators – final report]. 2016. IQWiG-Berichte – Nr 389.
27.
Lühnen J, Albrecht M, Hanssen K, Hildebrandt J, Steckelberg A. Guideline for the development of evidence-based patient information: insights into the methods and implementation of evidence-based health information. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2015;109(2):159–65.CrossRef
28.
Hinneburg J, Lühnen J, Steckelberg A, Berger-Höger B. A blended learning training programme for health information providers to enhance implementation of the guideline evidence-based health information: development and qualitative pilot study. BMC Med Educ. 2020;20:77.
29.
Chan AW, Tetzlaff JM, Altman DG, Laupacis A, Gotzsche PC, Krle AJK, et al. SPIRIT 2013 Statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2015;38(6):506–14.PubMedPubMedCentral
30.
Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2008;337:a1655.CrossRef
31.
Savery JR. Overview of problem-based learning: definitions and distinctions. IJPBL. 2006;1(1):9–20.
32.
Thistlethwaite JE, Davies D, Ekeocha S, Kidd JM, MacDougall C, Matthews P, et al. The effectiveness of case-based learning in health professional education. A BEME systematic review: BEME Guide No. 23. Med Teach. 2012;34(6):e421–44.CrossRef
33.
Kotz D, Bockmann M, Kastaun S. The use of tobacco, E-cigarettes, and methods to quit smoking in Germany. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2018;115(14):235–42.PubMedPubMedCentral
34.
Garrison DR, Kanuka H. Blended learning: uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. Internet High Educ. 2004;7(2):95–105.CrossRef
35.
Sharma N, Lau CS, Doherty I, Harbutt D. How we flipped the medical classroom. Med Teach. 2015;37(4):327–30.CrossRef
36.
Steckelberg A, Hülfenhaus C, Kasper J, Rost J, Mühlhauser I. How to measure critical health competences: development and validation of the Critical Health Competence Test (CHC Test). Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2009;14(1):11–22.CrossRef
37.
38.
Moore GF, Audrey S, Barker M, Bond L, Bonell C, Hardeman W, et al. Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2015;350:h1258.CrossRef
39.
Linnan L, Steckler A. Process evaluation for public health interventions and research; an overview. In: Linnan L, Steckler A, editors. Process evaluation for public health interventions and research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2002. p. 1–23.
40.
Kuckartz U. Mixed Methods: Methodologie, Forschungsdesigns und Analyseverfahren. [Mixed methods: methodology, research design and methods of analysis]. Springer Fachmedien: Wiesbaden; 2014.
41.
Mayring P. Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken. [Qualitative content analysis: basics and techniques]. 11th ed. Weinheim: Beltz; 2010.
42.
43.
44.
Institute of Medicine. Sharing clinical trial data: maximizing benefits, minimizing risk. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2015.
45.
Lo B. Sharing clinical trial data: maximizing benefits, minimizing risk. JAMA. 2015;313(8):793–4.CrossRef
46.
47.
World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA. 2013;310(20):2191–4.
Metadata
Title
Efficacy of a training programme to support the application of the guideline evidence-based health information: study protocol of a randomised controlled trial
Authors
Julia Lühnen
Birte Berger-Höger
Burkhard Haastert
Jana Hinneburg
Jürgen Kasper
Anke Steckelberg
Publication date
01-12-2020
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2020
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-020-04287-1

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

Trials 1/2020 Go to the issue

Research

Where do we go from here? – Opportunities and barriers to the career development of trial managers: a survey of UK-based trial management professionals

Study protocol

Vitamin D supplementation compared to placebo in people with First Episode psychosis - Neuroprotection Design (DFEND): a protocol for a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial

Study protocol

Impact of a package of diagnostic tools, clinical algorithm, and training and communication on outpatient acute fever case management in low- and middle-income countries: protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Study protocol

Aim2Be mHealth intervention for children with overweight and obesity: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Update

A pragmatic randomized controlled trial of multi-dose oral ondansetron for pediatric gastroenteritis (the DOSE-AGE study): statistical analysis plan

Letter

Efficacy of hydroxychloroquine for post-exposure prophylaxis to prevent severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection among adults exposed to coronavirus disease (COVID-19): a structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial