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
Systematic Reviews
Published in: Systematic Reviews 1/2021

01-12-2021 | Care | Research

Establishing the effectiveness of technology-enabled dementia education for health and social care practitioners: a systematic review

Authors: Kevin Muirhead, Leah Macaden, Keith Smyth, Colin Chandler, Charlotte Clarke, Rob Polson, Chris O’Malley

Published in: Systematic Reviews | Issue 1/2021

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Dementia prevalence is increasing globally and yet evidence suggest that gaps exist in dementia-specific knowledge among health and social care practitioners. Technological modes of educational delivery may be as effective as traditional education and can provide practitioners with increased accessibility to dementia training. Benefits of digitally based dementia education have been established including pedagogical strategies that influence dementia knowledge and care attitudes. This review aimed to appraise and synthesise contemporary experimental evidence that evaluated technology-enabled dementia education for health and social care practitioners. Outcomes based on Kirkpatrick’s Model were learner satisfaction; knowledge, skills, and attitudes; behaviours; and results.

Methods

MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Web of Science were among 8 bibliographic databases searched from January 2005 until February 2020. Keywords included dementia and education (and terms for technological modes of education, learning, or training). We included experimental and quasi-experimental studies. Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument established the overall quality of included studies and pragmatic application of Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool established individual study quality and highlighted methodological features of educational research. Narrative synthesis was conducted as heterogeneous outcome data precluded meta-analysis.

Results

We identified 21 relevant studies: 16 evaluated online dementia education and 5 evaluated computer-based approaches. Most studies used before-after designs and study quality was moderate overall. Most studies reported knowledge-based outcomes with statistically significant findings favouring the training interventions. Positive effects were also observed in studies measuring skills and attitudinal change. Fewer studies reported significant findings for behavioural change and results due to training. Case-based instruction was a frequently described instructional strategy in online dementia education and videos were common information delivery modes. CD-ROM training and simulation activities were described in computer-based dementia education.

Discussion

Future emphasis must be placed on teaching and learning methods within technology-enabled dementia education which should be role relevant and incorporate active and interactive learning strategies. Future evaluations will require contextually relevant research methodologies with capacity to address challenges presented by these complex educational programmes and multi-component characteristics.

Systematic review registration

This systematic review is based on a protocol registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018115378).
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Downs M, Turner S, Bryans M, Wilcock J, Keady J, Levin E, et al. Effectiveness of educational interventions in improving detection and management of dementia in primary care: cluster randomised controlled study. BMJ. 2006;332(7543):692–6.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Cowdell F. The care of older people with dementia in acute hospitals. Int J Older People Nurs. 2010;5(2):83–92.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Elliott K, Scott J, Stirling C, Martin A, Robinson A. Building capacity and resilience in the dementia care workforce: a systematic review of interventions targeting worker and organizational outcomes. Int Psychogeriatr. 2012;24(6):882–94.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Nolan L. Caring for people with dementia in the acute setting: a study of nurses’ views. Br J Nurs. 2007;16(7):419–22.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Timmons S, O’Shea E, O’Neill D, Gallagher P, de Siun A, McArdle D, et al. Acute hospital dementia care: results from a national audit. BMC Geriatr. 2016;16:113.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
14.
Bentley M, Kerr R, Ginger M, Karagoz J. Behavioural change in primary care professionals undertaking online education in dementia care in general practice. Aust J Prim Health. 2019;25(3):244–9.CrossRef
15.
Edwards R, Voss S, Iliffe S. The development and evaluation of an educational intervention for primary care promoting person-centred responses to dementia. Dementia. 2015;14(4):468–82.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Sass C, Burnley N, Drury M, Oyebode J, Surr C. Factors associated with successful dementia education for practitioners in primary care: an in-depth case study. BMC Med Educ. 2019;19:393.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
17.
Irvine A, Bourgeois M, Billow M, Seeley J. Internet training for nurse aides to prevent resident aggression. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2007;8(8):519–26.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Tullo E, Allan L. What should we be teaching medical students about dementia? Int Psychogeriatr. 2011;23(7):1044–50.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Kirkwood A, Price L. Technology-enabled learning implementation: handbook. Version 1. Canada: Commonwealth of Learning; 2016.
20.
Anohina A. Analysis of the terminology used in the field of virtual learning. Educ Technol Soc. 2005;8(3):91–102.
21.
22.
Vaona A, Banzi R, Kwag K, Rigon G, Cereda D, Pecoraro V, et al. E-learning for health professionals. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;1(1):CD011736.PubMed
23.
George P, Papachristou N, Belisario J, Wang W, Wark P, Cotic Z, et al. Online eLearning for undergraduates in health professions: a systematic review of the impact on knowledge, skills, attitudes and satisfaction. J Glob Health. 2014;4(1):010406.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
24.
Scerri A, Innes A, Scerri C. Dementia training programmes for staff working in general hospital settings – a systematic review of the literature. Aging Ment Health. 2017;21(8):783–96.PubMedCrossRef
25.
Surr C, Gates C. What works in delivering dementia education or training to hospital staff? A critical synthesis of the evidence. Int J Nurs Stud. 2017;75:172–88.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Horner B, Watson N, Hill A, Etherton-Beer C. Description, and pilot evaluation, of novel staff education to improve care of confused older inpatients. Aust J Adv Nurs. 2014;31(2):5–12.
27.
Surr C, Gates C, Irving D, Oyebode J, Smith S, Parveen S, et al. Effective dementia education and training for the health and social care workforce: a systematic review of the literature. Rev Educ Res. 2017;87(5):966–1002.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
28.
Scerbe A, O’Connell M, Astell A, Morgan D, Kosteniuk J, DesRoches A. Digital tools for delivery of dementia education for health-care providers: a systematic review. Educ Gerontol. 2019;45(11):681–99.CrossRef
29.
Allen M. What was Web 2.0? Versions as the dominant mode of internet history. New Media Soc. 2013;15(2):260–75.CrossRef
30.
Greenhow C, Robelia B, Hughes J. Learning, teaching, and scholarship in a digital age: Web 2.0 and classroom research: what path should we take now? Educ Res. 2009;38(4):246–59.CrossRef
31.
32.
Cook D, Beckman T, Bordage G. Quality of reporting of experimental studies in medical education: a systematic review. Med Educ. 2007;41(8):737–45.PubMedCrossRef
33.
Kirkpatrick D. Great ideas revisited. Techniques for evaluating training programs. Revisiting Kirkpatrick’s four-level model. Train Dev. 1996;50(1):54–9.
34.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman D, The PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
35.
Muirhead K, Macaden L, Clarke C, Smyth K, Polson R, O’Malley C. The characteristics of effective technology-enabled dementia education for health and social care practitioners: protocol for a mixed studies systematic review. Syst Rev. 2019;8(1):316.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
36.
37.
Drummond K, Murphy-Reyes A. Chapter 6: Quantitative research designs: experimental, quasi-experimental, and descriptive. In: Nutrition research: concepts and applications. Burlington: Jones & Bartlett Learning; 2018.
38.
Shadish W, Cook T, Campbell D. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company; 2002.
39.
Gopalan M, Rosinger K, Ahn J. Use of quasi-experimental research designs in education research: growth, promise, and challenges. Rev Res Educ. 2020;44(1):218–43.CrossRef
40.
Wludyka P. Study designs and their outcomes. In: Macha K, McDonough J, editors. Epidemiology for advanced nursing practice. Sudbury: Jones & Bartlett Learning; 2012.
41.
Harris A, McGregor J, Perencevich E, Furuno J, Zhu J, Peterson D, et al. The use and interpretation of quasi-experimental studies in medical informatics. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2006;13(1):16–23.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
42.
Seo D, Lee J. Web_2.0 and five years since: how the combination of technological and organizational initiatives influences an organization’s long-term Web_2.0 performance. Telemat Inform. 2016;33(1):232–46.CrossRef
43.
Reio T, Rocco T, Smith D, Chang E. A critique of Kirkpatrick’s evaluation model. New Horiz Adult Educ Hum Resour Dev. 2017;29(2):35–53.CrossRef
44.
Guerci M, Bartezzaghi E, Solari L. Training evaluation in Italian corporate universities: a stakeholder-based analysis. Int J Train Dev. 2010;14(4):291–308.CrossRef
45.
Hammick M, Dornan T, Steinert Y. Conducting a best evidence systematic review. Part 1: from idea to data coding BEME guide no. 13. Med Teach. 2010;32(1):3–15.PubMedCrossRef
46.
47.
Reed D, Cook D, Beckman T, Levine R, Kern D, Wright S. Association between funding and quality of published medical education research. JAMA. 2007;298(9):1002–9.PubMedCrossRef
48.
Hong Q, Fàbregues S, Bartlett G, Boardman F, Cargo M, Dagenais P, et al. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers. Educ Inf. 2018;34(4):1–7.
49.
Reed D, Beckman T, Wright S, Levine R, Kern D, Cook D. Predictive validity evidence for medical education research study quality instrument scores: quality of submissions to JGIM’s Medical Education Special Issue. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23(7):903–7.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
50.
Cook D, Reed D. Appraising the quality of medical education research methods: the medical education research study quality instrument and the Newcastle Ottawa Scale-Education. Acad Med. 2015;90(8):1067–76.PubMedCrossRef
51.
Page M, McKenzie J, Bossuyt P, Boutron I, Hoffmann T, Mulrow C, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
52.
Chao H, Kaas M, Su Y, Lin M, Huang M, Wang J. Effects of the advanced innovative Internet-based communication education program on promoting communication between nurses and patients with dementia. J Nur Res. 2016;24(2):163–72.CrossRef
53.
Cobbett S, Redmond S, LeBlanc A, MacNaughton-Doucet L, Edgecombe N, Helpard H. On-line dementia education: cultivating nursing students’ comprehension, application and critical thinking skills. Perspectives. 2016;39(1):7–14.
54.
De Witt JB, Brazil K, Passmore P, Buchanan H, Maxwell D, McIlfatrick S, et al. Evaluation of the impact of telementoring using ECHO© technology on healthcare professionals’ knowledge and self-efficacy in assessing and managing pain for people with advanced dementia nearing the end of life. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):228.CrossRef
55.
Helms A, Denson K, Brown D, Simpson D. One specialty at a time: achieving competency in geriatrics through an e-learning neurology clerkship module. Acad Med. 2009;84(Supplement):S67–9.PubMedCrossRef
56.
Hobday J, Gaugler J, Mittelman M. Feasibility and utility of online dementia care training for hospital staff: the CARES dementia-friendly hospitalTM program. Res Gerontol Nurs. 2017;10(2):58–65.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
57.
Hobday J, Savik K, Gaugler J. An internet-based multimedia education prototype to enhance late-stage dementia care: formative research results. Geriatr Nurs. 2010;31(6):402–11.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
58.
Hobday J, Savik K, Smith S, Gaugler J. Feasibility of internet training for care staff of residents with dementia: the CARES program. J Gerontol Nurs. 2010;36(4):13–21.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
59.
Irvine A, Beaty J, Seeley J, Bourgeois M. Use of a dementia training designed for nurse aides to train other staff. J Appl Gerontol. 2013;32(8):936–51.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
60.
Jones C, Moyle W. Sexuality & dementia: an eLearning resource to improve knowledge and attitudes of aged-care staff. Educ Gerontol. 2016;42(8):563–71.CrossRef
61.
Kimzey M, Mastel-Smith B, Alfred D. The impact of educational experiences on nursing students’ knowledge and attitudes toward people with Alzheimer’s disease: a mixed method study. Nurse Educ Today. 2016;46:57–63.PubMedCrossRef
62.
63.
Matsumura Y, Shinno H, Mori T, Nakamura Y. Simulating clinical psychiatry for medical students: a comprehensive clinic simulator with virtual patients and an electronic medical record system. Acad Psychiatry. 2018;42(5):613–21.PubMedCrossRef
64.
Rababa M, Masha’al D. Using branching path simulations in critical thinking of pain management among nursing students: experimental study. Nurse Educ Today. 2020;86:104323.PubMedCrossRef
65.
Ruiz J, Smith M, van Zuilen M, Williams C, Mintzer M. The educational impact of a computer-based training tutorial on dementia in long term care for licensed practice nursing students. Gerontol Geriatr Educ. 2006;26(3):67–79.PubMedCrossRef
66.
Tomaz J, Mamede S, Filho J, Roriz Filho J, van der Molen H. Effectiveness of an online problem-based learning curriculum for training family medical doctors in Brazil. Education for Health. 2015;28(3):187–93.PubMedCrossRef
67.
Tsai P, Kitch S, Beck C, Jakobs T, Rettiganti M, Jordan K, et al. Using an interactive video simulator to improve certified nursing assistants’ dressing assistance and nursing home residents’ dressing performance: a pilot study. Comput Inform Nurs. 2018;36(4):183–92.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
68.
Vollmar H, Mayer H, Ostermann T, Butzlaff M, Sandars J, Wilm S, et al. Knowledge transfer for the management of dementia: a cluster-randomised trial of blended learning in general practice. Implement Sci. 2010;5:1.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
69.
Westmoreland G, Counsell S, Tu W, Wu J, Litzelman D. Web-based training in geriatrics for medical residents: a randomized controlled trial using standardized patients to assess outcomes. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2010;58(6):1163–9.PubMedCrossRef
70.
Bandura A. Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. Am Psychol. 1982;37(2):122–47.CrossRef
71.
Fishbein M, Ajzen I. Predicting and changing behavior: the reasoned action approach. 1st ed. New York: Psychology Press (Taylor and Francis Group); 2010.
72.
Cook D, Levinson A, Garside S, Dupras D, Erwin P, Montori V. Internet-based learning in the health professions: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 2008;300(10):1181–96.PubMedCrossRef
73.
Travers C, Beattie E, Martin-Khan M, Fielding E. A survey of the Queensland healthcare workforce: attitudes towards dementia care and training. BMC Geriatr. 2013;13(1):101.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
74.
Ertmer P, Ottenbreit-Leftwich A. Removing obstacles to the pedagogical changes required by Jonassen’s vision of authentic technology-enabled learning. Comput Educ. 2013;64(1):175–82.CrossRef
75.
Chater K, Hughes N. Strategies to deliver dementia training and education in the acute hospital setting. J Res Nurs. 2013;18(6):578–93.CrossRef
76.
Serhan D. Transitioning from face-to-face to remote learning: students’ attitudes and perceptions of using Zoom during COVID-19 pandemic. Int J Technol Educ Sci. 2020;4(4):335–42.CrossRef
77.
Cook D, Levinson A, Garside S. Time and learning efficiency in Internet-based learning: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2010;15(5):755–70.CrossRef
78.
Harris J, Felix L, Miners A, Murray E, Michie S, Ferguson E, et al. Adaptive e-learning to improve dietary behaviour: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Technol Assess. 2011;15(37):1–160.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
79.
Clark E, Draper J, Taylor R. Healthcare education research: the case for rethinking hierarchies of evidence. J Adv Nurs. 2018;74(11):2480–3.PubMedCrossRef
80.
McCabe M, Davison T, George K. Effectiveness of staff training programs for behavioral problems among older people with dementia. Aging Ment Health. 2007;11(5):505–19.PubMedCrossRef
81.
Perry M, Drašković I, Lucassen P, Vernooij-Dassen M, van Achterberg T, Rikkert M. Effects of educational interventions on primary dementia care: a systematic review. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2011;26(1):1–11.PubMedCrossRef
82.
Norman G. RCT = results confounded and trivial: the perils of grand educational experiments. Med Educ. 2003;37(7):582–4.PubMedCrossRef
83.
84.
Unwin L, Felstead A, Fuller A, Bishop D, Lee T, Jewson N, et al. Looking inside the Russian doll: the interconnections between context, learning and pedagogy in the workplace. Pedagog Cult Soc. 2007;15(3):333–48.CrossRef
85.
Rogers P. Using programme theory to evaluate complicated and complex aspects of interventions. Evaluation. 2008;14(1):29–48.CrossRef
86.
87.
Kirkpatrick D, Kirkpatrick J. Evaluating training programs: the four levels. 3rd ed. California: Berrett-Koehler Publishers; 2006.
Metadata
Title
Establishing the effectiveness of technology-enabled dementia education for health and social care practitioners: a systematic review
Authors
Kevin Muirhead
Leah Macaden
Keith Smyth
Colin Chandler
Charlotte Clarke
Rob Polson
Chris O’Malley
Publication date
01-12-2021
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Systematic Reviews / Issue 1/2021
Electronic ISSN: 2046-4053
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01781-8

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

Systematic Reviews 1/2021 Go to the issue

Protocol

Protocol for systematic review: patient decision aids for total hip and knee arthroplasty decision-making

Research

The ability of comorbidity indices to predict mortality in an orthopedic setting: a systematic review

Protocol

Exploring the challenges and features of implementing performance-based payment plan in hospitals: a protocol for a systematic review

Protocol

Critical appraisal of clinical practice guidelines for the management of COVID-19: protocol for a systematic review

Protocol

Predictors of the length of stay of psychiatric inpatients: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

Protocol

Protocol for a systematic review of policies, programs or interventions designed to improve health and wellbeing of young people leaving the out-of-home care system