PartThree:Summary of Review Article:
Evidence-based medicine training during residency: a randomized controlled trial of efficacy.((Total 20 points)
Each individual group member must read and write a (no more than 2 pages) summary of the following article placed on the classroom server in the EBM Folder:
“A randomised controlled trial of a blended learning education intervention for teaching
evidence-based medicine Dragan Ilic, Rusli Bin Nordin, Paul Glasziou, Julie K Tilson and Elmer Villanueva”
Ilic et al. BMC Medical Education (2015) 15:39
DOI 10.1186/s12909-015-0321-6
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Open Access
A randomised controlled trial of a blended
learning education intervention for teaching
evidence-based medicine
Dragan Ilic1*, Rusli Bin Nordin2, Paul Glasziou3, Julie K Tilson4 and Elmer Villanueva5
Abstract
Background: Few studies have been performed to inform how best to teach evidence-based medicine (EBM) to
medical trainees. Current evidence can only conclude that any form of teaching increases EBM competency, but
cannot distinguish which form of teaching is most effective at increasing student competency in EBM. This study
compared the effectiveness of a blended learning (BL) versus didactic learning (DL) approach of teaching EBM to
medical students with respect to competency, self-efficacy, attitudes and behaviour toward EBM.
Methods: A mixed methods study consisting of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) and qualitative case study was
performed with medical students undertaking their first clinical year of training in EBM. Students were randomly
assigned to receive EBM teaching via either a BL approach or the incumbent DL approach. Competency in EBM
was assessed using the Berlin questionnaire and the ‘Assessing Competency in EBM’ (ACE) tool. Students’ self-efficacy,
attitudes and behaviour was also assessed. A series of focus groups was also performed to contextualise the
quantitative results.
Results: A total of 147 students completed the RCT, and a further 29 students participated in six focus group
discussions. Students who received the BL approach to teaching EBM had significantly higher scores in 5 out of 6
behaviour domains, 3 out of 4 attitude domains and 10 out of 14 self-efficacy domains. Competency in EBM did
not differ significantly between students receiving the BL approach versus those receiving the DL approach [Mean
Difference (MD)=−0.68, (95% CI–1.71, 0.34), p=0.19]. No significant difference was observed between sites (p=0.89)
or by student type (p=0.58). Focus group discussions suggested a strong student preference for teaching using a
BL approach, which integrates lectures, online learning and small group activities.
Conclusions: BL is no more effective than DL at increasing medical students’ knowledge and skills in EBM, but
was significantly more effective at increasing student attitudes toward EBM and self-reported use of EBM in clinical
practice. Given the various learning styles preferred by students, a multifaceted approach (incorporating BL) may
be best suited when teaching EBM to medical students. Further research on the cost-effectiveness of EBM teaching
modalities is required.
Keywords: Evidence based medicine, Assessment, Medical education, Blended learning
* Correspondence: dragan.ilic@monash.edu
1
Department of Epidemiology & Preventive Medicine, School of Public
Health & Preventive Medicine, Level 6, The Alfred Centre, 99 Commercial Rd,
Melbourne, VIC 3004, Australia
Full list of author information is available at the end of the article
© 2015 Ilic et al.; licensee BioMed Central. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain
Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article,
unless otherwise stated.
Ilic et al. BMC Medical Education (2015) 15:39
Background
Evidence-based medicine (EBM), also referred to as
evidence-based practice (EBP), has been adopted as a
core unit across many medical schools worldwide [1,2],
with a particular focus in Australian Universities [3,4].
EBM is based on the principle that informed medical
decision making is achieved by integrating the best
available evidence with clinical expertise and patient
values [5]. For clinicians to be competent in EBM, they
must be able to understand and apply the following
EBM steps (ask, acquire, appraise, apply and assess) in
clinical practice:
1. Ask a clinical question that is constructed using the
PICO (patient, intervention, comparison, outcome)
framework;
2. Acquire evidence via a systematic and efficient search
of the literature;
3. Appraise the evidence through application of critical
appraisal techniques;
4. Apply the evidence to the clinical scenario; and
5. Assess the EBM process as it relates to the clinical
context [5].
Each step within the EBM process requires a different
level of competency (i.e. integration of knowledge, skill,
attitude and behaviour) from the user [6]. Achieving a
high level of competency in EBM can only be achieved
when the user is able to effectively undertake all five
steps, which incorporate adequate levels of knowledge,
skills, attitude and behavioural elements [6]. Achieving
competency in EBM not only provides users with the
ability to make informed medical decisions, but also the
skills required to be life-long learners in their discipline.
Due to the multifaceted nature of knowledge and skills
required to be competent in EBM, it is evident that
teaching EBM should integrate core knowledge with
clinical practical activities in a bid to improve competency in EBM [7]. EBM may be taught across a variety of
modes including lectures, tutorials, mini-courses, online,
problem based or self-directed learning [7]. However,
limited evidence currently exists in order to inform educators as to the most effective method of teaching and
increasing user competency in EBM.
A 2004 systematic review identified two randomised
controlled trials (RCTs) and seven non-RCTs that examined the effectiveness of different teaching modalities in
EBM across post-graduate students [8]. The authors of
that review concluded that standalone teaching improved
student knowledge, but not skills, attitudes or behaviour
in EBM. Conversely, evidence from the non-RCTs indicated that integrating teaching of EBM with clinical
activities (i.e. blended learning) was associated with improvements across all four domains (i.e. knowledge,
Page 2 of 10
skills, attitudes and behaviour) [8]. A more recent systematic review examined the impact of different teaching
modalities on medical trainees [9]. Based on 9 RCTs
identified, the authors concluded that any form of
teaching, including lecture, tutorial, self-directed, online, problem-based, uni and multidisciplinary, was
associated with an increase in EBM competency. However, no single intervention was identified as being
significantly better than others at increasing EBM
competency.
Student learning styles, infrastructure or other organisational issues may all dictate how an EBM course is implemented. EBM requires mastery across a variety of
disparate disciplines including epidemiology, biostatistics,
informatics and information literacy. Given the different
learning outcomes across these disciplines, a multifaceted
approach is required to teach a multidimensional discipline such as EBM [10]. Blended learning (BL) attempts to
create an optimal learning environment by blending a
variety of learning approaches (lecture, tutorial, online,
problem-based and clinical) to account for different learning styles and requirements [10]. Learning styles in this
instance refers to the concept that individuals differ with
respect to what mode of instruction or study is most
effective for them in processing, absorbing and retaining
information [11].
Few RCTs have evaluated the effectiveness of the BL
model in medicine. The majority of studies performed
to date have focussed on clinical disciplines within
medicine and have reported an increase in student selfefficacy, knowledge and self-directed learning [12-14].
The first controlled trial examining BL within the EBM
context was performed in a small cohort of graduateentry medical students and identified no difference in
EBM competency between students receiving the BL
approach and those receiving a didactic learning (DL)
approach [3]. However, students receiving the BL model
reported significantly greater self-efficacy and confidence in their EBM competency and ability to translate
theory into practice.
EBM aims to promote informed medical decision
making, yet currently, there is a lack of evidence to inform
educators and learners as to the most effective methods of
teaching EBM to medical students. The aim of this study
was to conduct the first RCT to examine the effectiveness
of implementing a BL versus DL approach of teaching
EBM to medical students. This study also aimed to examine students’ self-efficacy, perceptions and attitudes toward
EBM teaching delivered through a BL approach.
Methods
Design
We used a mixed methods design, incorporating a RCT
and a focus group follow up assessment. Use of this
Ilic et al. BMC Medical Education (2015) 15:39
mixed methods approach provides an opportunity for
quantitative data to inform the effectiveness of the intervention, whilst the qualitative data contextualise quantitative results by addressing issues of ‘how’ and ‘why’
[15]. The methods of this study have been previously
published as a protocol [16].
Settings and participants
A multi-campus study was performed with medical students enrolled in the MBBS course at Monash University.
Monash University runs undergraduate and graduateentry MBBS programs at both its campuses in Australia
and Malaysia. During the first clinical teaching year of the
course, students are assigned to one of seven metropolitan
hospitals, or six rural, hospitals in Australia (with one site
in Malaysia). Participants were third year medical students, who were all entering their first year of clinicallybased training and first year of formal EBM training.
Page 3 of 10
EBM integrated (i) classroom activities (lecture/tutorial)
with (ii) online and (iii) mobile learning. The online component was provided through specific resources delivered
via the Monash library website [17], as well as specifically
designed online lectures, made available through YouTube,
which students were asked to view prior to attending
the respective two hour teaching block [17,18]. The
mobile learning component was delivered on the
wards, when students were interacting with patients
during their existing day-to-day ‘bedside teaching’
schedule. During the mobile learning, students were
required to take a detailed medical history from the
patient, as they normally would during their ‘bedside’
teaching. Students would then apply the relevant week’s
EBM content, before presenting their patient case
during the next EBM tutorial. The methodology for this
intervention was previously piloted [3]. Further details
about the DL and BL approaches can be found in the
protocol of this study [16].
Recruitment for RCT
As part of their EBM training, students are randomly
allocated to a tutorial group consisting of approximately
20–25 students in a group. Tutorial groups were randomised to receive EBM teaching adopting a BL or a DL
approach. Students not wishing to participate in the
study were taught via the DL approach (the current
approach to teaching EBM) and did not complete any
outcome assessments.
Randomisation
Students were randomised according to their tutorial
group (i.e. cluster) by a researcher independent to the
study utilising a simple cluster randomisation procedure
(computerised random numbers). All students were provided with access to the BL materials at the conclusion
of the study period to ensure parity between groups for
upcoming examinations.
Control
Students randomised to the control group received the
DL model. The DL model consisted of a 10 two-hour
teaching sessions in which formal EBM concepts are delivered by a tutor/lecturer to students. Teaching sessions
commence with a formal presentation, which is followed
by students performing a small group activity to consolidate their learning. This small group activity is commonly a critical appraisal of an article relating to the
study design discussed by the lecturer/tutor incorporating elements of therapy, harm, prognosis and diagnosis.
Outcome measures
Student competency in EBM was assessed by a blinded
outcome assessor, one-month post-teaching activities,
using the validated Berlin Questionnaire and ACE tool
[19,20]. The Berlin Questionnaire is a 15-point multiplechoice item questionnaire that has been developed and
validated to measure medical professionals’ knowledge
and skills in EBM [19]. The ACE tool is a 15-point
dichotomous-choice item questionnaire that has been
developed and validated to measure medical students’
knowledge and skills in EBM [20]. Student self-efficacy
was assessed using the Evidence-Based Practice Question (EBPQ) [21]. The EBPQ is a self-reported measure
of implementation of EBM, with measures relating to
self-efficacy, behaviour and attitudes toward EBM.
Blinding
Due to the educational nature of the intervention, it was
not possible to blind either the educators or the students. The outcome assessor and data analyst were kept
blinded to allocation.
Analyses
Sample size calculation
To detect a 50% difference in EBM competency (α=0.05,
β=0.80, σ=2.8) between groups, it was determined that a
minimum of 120 students per arm (40 from each of
metropolitan Melbourne (undergraduate), rural Victoria
(graduate) and Monash Malaysia (international)), were
required for recruitment.
Intervention
Students randomised to the intervention group received
the same theoretical concepts taught in the control
group, but in a BL approach. The BL approach to teaching
Statistical analyses
Quantitative data was analysed using the principle
of intention-to-treat. Mean differences (MD) in EBM
Ilic et al. BMC Medical Education (2015) 15:39
competency and self-efficacy between intervention
and control groups was explored using Student’s t-test for
parametric and Mann–Whitney U-test for non-parametric
data. Differences between intervention/control groups
and student type were explored using one and two-way
ANOVAs.
Recruitment for focus groups
At the conclusion of the RCT, students from the 13
Australian hospital sites, and one Malaysian site, who
received the intervention were invited to participate in
focus groups using a convenience sampling approach
[22]. Students were required to provide written consent
prior to their participation in the group.
Data collection
All focus groups were homogeneous in their composition (i.e. Australian metropolitan, rural or Malaysian
sites). All focus groups at the Australian sites were performed by a facilitator independent to the study, whilst
another facilitator was required to lead focus groups in
Malaysia. All focus group discussions were guided by a
semi-structured interview schedule (Additional file 1).
Each focus group was comprised of up to six students,
and were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim at
the conclusion of the focus groups. Focus groups were
run until the point of theoretical saturation, whereby no
further novel ideas were generated through discussion.
Data analysis
Transcripts from all focus groups were analysed independently by two researchers (DI and another independent academic) using thematic analysis [23]. Thematic
analysis consisted of a six step approach including; (i)
familiarization of the data, (ii) generation of preliminary
Figure 1 Flow diagram of randomised controlled trial.
Page 4 of 10
codes, (iii) searching for themes from the preliminary
codes, (iv) creation of a thematic map, (v) specific defining of themes, and (vi) final analysis [24].
Ethics
Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the
Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee.
Ethics approval was applicable to all Australian and
Malaysian sites participating in the study.
Results
A total of 497 students were eligible and enrolled for participation in one of the two learning approaches. A total of
147 (30%) (45 graduate-entry and 102 undergraduateentry) students completed the Berlin Questionnaire and
ACE tool (Figure 1). The remaining 350 students declined
to complete the outcome assessment. Of the 147 students
completing the outcome assessment, 63 students were
placed at an Australia metropolitan hospital, 45 at an
Australian rural hospital and 39 at a Malaysian-based
hospital. From the 147 students completing the outcome measures, 82 (56%) students also completed the
EBPQ outcome measure. A further 29 students participated in 6 focus group discussions (10 students from
the Malaysian campus participated in 2 focus group
discussions, 7 students from the graduate-entry program participated in 2 focus group discussions and 12
students from the Australian metropolitan-based hospitals participated in 2 focus group discussions).
No significant difference in EBM competency was
observed between students undertaking the EBM course
using the BL approach compared to students undertaking the DL approach. This outcome was consistent
regardless of whether outcomes were assessed via the
Berlin Questionnaire [MD=−0.68, (95% CI–1.71, 0.34),
Ilic et al. BMC Medical Education (2015) 15:39
p=0.19] or the ACE tool [MD=−2.5, (95% CI–1.05, 0.53),
p=0.52] (Figure 2). No significant difference in EBM
competency was observed between Australian-based undergraduate, Malaysian-based undergraduate, or Australianbased graduate-entry students (Berlin Questionnaire p=0.89;
ACE tool p=0.09) (Table 1). Further analysis demonstrated
no significant difference in EBM competency between
students within those sites regarding method of EBM
delivery (Berlin Questionnaire p=0.58; ACE tool p=0.26)
(Figures 3 and 4).
No significant difference in EBM competency was
observed between undergraduate versus graduate students. This outcome was consistent regardless of
whether outcomes were assessed via the Berlin Questionnaire [MD=−0.26, (95% CI–1.38, 0.85), p=0.64] or
the ACE tool (median difference=0, p=0.12). Further
analysis demonstrated no significant difference in EBM
competency between undergraduate and graduate student
cohorts regarding method of EBM delivery, be it via the
BL or DL approach (Berlin Questionnaire p=0.36; ACE
tool p=0.44) (Figures 5 and 6).
Perceived self-efficacy, attitudes and behaviour toward
EBM was significantly higher in students who received
the BL approach (Table 2). Students who received the
BL approach had significantly higher scores in 5 out of 6
behaviour domains, 3 out of 4 attitude domains and 10
out of 14 self-efficacy domains. Students who received the
BL approach also reported significantly higher scores relating to the implementation of the 5 steps relating to
EBM (as identified through questions 1–5 on the EBPQ).
Analysis of focus group discussions with students
identified four themes relating to (i) preferred learning
approach, (ii) perceptions of the blended learning approach, (iii) perceptions of the didactic learning approach, and (iv) barriers and enablers to teaching EBM.
Figure 2 Comparison of EBM competency across students
randomised to blended learning or didactic learning
methodologies. EBM competency is assessed using the Berlin
Questionnaire and the ACE tool (mean score ± 95% confidence interval).
Page 5 of 10
Table 1 EBM competency across Australian
undergraduate, graduate and Malaysian undergraduate
cohorts
Cohort comparison
Mean difference
(95% CI)
EBM competency as measured by the Berlin Questionnaire
Australian undergraduate vs Australian graduate
−0.27 (−1.75 to 1.20)
Australian undergraduate vs Malaysian
undergraduate
−0.02 (−1.55 to 1.51)
Australian graduate vs Malaysian undergraduate
0.25 (−1.39 to 1.90)
Cohort comparison
Mean rank
difference
EBM competency as measured by the ACE tool
Australian undergraduate vs Australian graduate
−6.467
Australian undergraduate vs Malaysian
undergraduate
13.12
Australian graduate vs Malaysian undergraduate
19.58
Preferred learning approach
Students preferred an integrated learning approach that
facilitated different learning styles. DL, whether it is
delivered as a lecture or online multimedia resource,
was preferred for the acquisition of ‘facts’ or foundation information (e.g. gross anatomy in clinical medicine and research methodologies in EBM). Students were
amenable to engaging in self-directed DL approaches (e.g.
viewing YouTube clips rather than attending a lecture).
Workshops and small group activities were preferred
for the acquisition of skills, be it clinical or EBM. The
interactive nature of small group work facilitated
greater student engagement with the content and provided motivation to apply learnt skills in the clinical
context.
Figure 3 Comparison of EBM competency across students
randomised to blended learning or didactic learning
methodologies. EBM competency is assessed using the Berlin
Questionnaire (mean score ± 95% confidence interval).
Ilic et al. BMC Medical Education (2015) 15:39
Page 6 of 10
emphasis was placed on individual self-directed learning in the latter aspect of the curriculum.
“It was like someone thinking out aloud, someone who
knew what they were doing, so understood the thought
process (…behind teaching EBM to students)”.
DL approach
Figure 4 Comparison of EBM competency across students
randomised to blended learning or didactic learning
methodologies. EBM competency is assessed using the ACE tool
(mean score ± 95% confidence interval).
“I like the interactive style with workshops and small
groups… you get your hands dirty, with lectures you
tend to zone out…”
BL approach
Students were positive about using the BL approach in
teaching and learning about EBM. The three-step
approach of (i) self-directed learning through viewing
online multimedia presentations, (ii) discussion and
activities in class, and (iii) application in practice was
positively received by students. Students receiving the
BL approach found the content useful, engaging and
well-targeted to their level of competency. Students
suggested that the BL approach could be strengthened
by introducing a journal club approach to small group
activities early in the curriculum, providing an opportunity to learn in a group environment before greater
Students receiving the DL approach perceived the EBM
content delivered as dense and dry. Students suggested
that this approach only promoted superficial learning of
the EBM content, sufficient only for adequate completion of assessment tasks. Students described the variation in perceived ability of different tutors across sites
to engage with students and demonstrate the applicability of the material and EBM to clinical practice. Upon
completion of the trial, students in the DL group were
able to view the YouTube clips–all suggested that the
provision of such online didactic presentations would
provide greater engagement with students and perceived
parity of teaching across sites.
“…the clarity of the information presented in the
videos compared with that presented by the tutors was
miles apart”.
Barriers to teaching EBM
The most common barrier reported in implementing the
BL approach was the method of implementation by
tutors across the 14 teaching hospitals involved in this
study. Although students were required to view the
online clips prior to the tutorials, some sites would show
the clips in-class, to appease students who did not do
the pre-tutorial activities. This would negatively impact
upon the time allocated for in-class activities. Students
involved in this study were experiencing the first year
of teaching in a clinical environment. Many students
Figure 5 Comparison of EBM competency across graduate and undergraduate students randomised to blended learning or didactic
learning methodologies. EBM competency is assessed using the Berlin Questionnaire (mean score ± 95% confidence interval).
Ilic et al. BMC Medical Education (2015) 15:39
Page 7 of 10
Figure 6 Comparison of EBM competency across graduate and undergraduate students randomised to blended learning or didactic
learning methodologies. EBM competency is assessed using the ACE tool (mean score ± 95% confidence interval).
reported a disconnect between the teaching of EBM and
perceived application in their current clinical teaching.
Students suggested that teaching EBM may have greater
clinical value with students after a longer exposure to
clinical teaching.
“We are still learning to walk and yet they want us to
run (in terms of applying EBM to the clinical context)”.
Discussion
This study was the first RCT to examine the value of
teaching EBM to medical students via a BL approach.
Our findings demonstrate equivalence in student EBM
competency regardless of whether teaching was implemented using a BL or DL approach. This equivalence in
student EBM competency was not significantly different
between undergraduate and graduate-entry students, or
amongst Australian and Malaysian based students. Perceived self-efficacy, attitudes and behaviour were significantly higher in students receiving the BL approach.
Findings from this RCT support pilot findings from a
non-randomised study of graduate-entry medical students, which demonstrated no significant difference in
EBM competency between students regardless of teaching method (BL or DL) utilised [3]. Findings from our
trial support systematic review evidence that suggests
equivalence amongst teaching modalities when teaching
EBM, be it DL, BL, uni or multi-disciplinary [9]. It further supports evidence from non-randomised studies in
post-graduate medical students that suggest that integrating EBM teaching with clinical activities is associated
with relative increases in knowledge, skills, attitudes and
behaviours.
The quantitative results would suggest no difference in
learner competency in EBM, which may in part be
attributed to the nature of the assessments, of which the
majority of items assess cognitive knowledge, rather than
direct application in a clinical context. The qualitative
findings would suggest that a BL approach to teaching
EBM is more successful at improving student behaviours
and attitudes toward EBM. A student’s perceived relevance of EBM, application (both seen and actual) and
clinical maturity may influence competency in EBM
[25-28]. Students who received the BL approach in this
study had significantly higher (albeit self-reported) levels
of self-efficacy, behaviour and attitude toward EBM
compared to those that received the DL approach. Our
qualitative findings demonstrated a distinct student
preference for a BL approach (for both clinical and EBM
related teaching), since this mode of teaching was perceived to provide better student engagement with key
theoretical and practical components [3].
A variety of barriers may prevent the implementation
of evidence into practice, including perceived relevance,
awareness or opportunity [29]. Our study has demonstrated that students receiving the BL approach were
significantly more likely to be implementing the five key
steps of EBM at this early stage of their clinical careers.
Implementing an EBM program during the first year in
which students are exposed to the clinical environment
may facilitate a greater link between the theory of EBM
and its use in clinical practice. Students in this study
highlighted the potential disconnect between what they
were learning and practicing in the clinical environment. Such disconnect may be attributed to a lack of
clinical maturity, or lack of mentorship from senior
clinical staff who may themselves not be practitioners of
EBM [25,30].
Use of BL in clinical medicine is becoming more
prominent, as educators use lectures to disseminate
information required for foundation learning, whilst
small group activities (including problem-based learning),
Ilic et al. BMC Medical Education (2015) 15:39
Page 8 of 10
Table 2 Self-efficacy, attitudes and behaviour across students randomised to blended and didactic learning
approaches
Question
Blended learning
(Mean ± SD) n=44
Didactic learning
(Mean ± SD) n=38
Mean difference
(95%CI)
1. How often have you formulated a clearly answerable question as the
beginning of the process towards filling an information gap?
6.22 ± 0.16
4.21 ± 0.33
2.01 (1.29 to 2.73)*
2. How often have you tracked down the relevant evidence once you have
formulated the question?
6.13 ± 0.20
5.05 ± 0.24
1.08 (0.45 to 1.7)*
3. How often have you critically appraised any literature you have discovered?
5.63 ± 0.27
4.26 ± 0.32
1.37 (0.52 to 2.2)*
4. How often have you integrated the evidence you have found with your
activities?
5.72 ± 0.27
4.10 ± 0.28
1.62 (0.82 to 2.41)*
5. How often have you evaluated the outcomes of your EBCP practice?
5.50 ± 0.28
3.26 ± 0.36
2.24 (1.31 to 3.15)*
6. How often have you shared information that you’ve gathered with
colleagues?
5.50 ± 0.34
4.78 ± 0.32
0.72 (−0.23 to 1.65)
7. New evidence is so important that I make the time in my work schedule
5.09 ± 0.32
3.73 ± 0.21
1.36 (0.56 to 2.14)*
8. I welcome questions on my practice
6.09 ± 0.22
5.31 ± 0.18
0.78 (0.19 to 1.35)*
9. Evidence based practice is fundamental to professional practice
6.63 ± 0.12
6.15 ± 0.14
0.48 (0.09 to 0.85)*
10. My practice has changed because of evidence I have found
5.68 ± 0.21
5.10 ± 0.23
0.58 (−0.04 to 1.20)
Practice of evidence-based practice
Attitude towards evidence-based practice
Knowledge/skills associated with evidence-based practice
11. How would you rate your research skills?
5.09 ± 0.21
3.73 ± 0.19
1.36 (0.78 to 1.92)*
12. How would you rate your IT skills?
5.68 ± 0.24
4.47 ± 0.22
1.21 (0.54 to 1.87)*
13. How would you rate your ability to monitor and review your EBCP skills?
5.22 ± 0.26
3.73 ± 0.20
1.49 (0.80 to 2.17)*
14. How would you rate your ability to convert your information needs into a
clinical question?
5.95 ± 0.19
4.68 ± 0.15
1.27 (0.76 to 1.77)*
15. How would you rate your awareness of major information types and
sources?
5.27 ± 0.25
5.26 ± 0.13
0.01 (−0.59 to 0.61)
16. How would you rate your ability to identify gaps in your professional
practice?
4.81 ± 0.19
4.36 ± 0.20
0.45 (−0.12 to 1.02)
17. How would you rate your knowledge of how to retrieve evidence?
5.31 ± 0.24
4.94 ± 0.18
0.37 (−0.25 to 1.00)
18. How would you rate your ability to analyse critically evidence?
5.09 ± 0.20
4.15 ± 0.16
0.94 (0.40 to 1.46)*
19. How would you rate your ability to determine how valid (close to the
truth) the material is?
5.00 ± 0.26
4.05 ± 0.19
0.95 (0.27 to 1.61)*
20. How would you rate your ability to determine how useful (clinically
applicable) the material is?
5.68 ± 0.18
4.57 ± 0.12
1.11 (0.64 to 1.56)*
21. How would you rate your ability to apply information to individual cases?
5.40 ± 0.18
4.78 ± 0.17
0.62 (0.10 to 1.13)*
22. How would you rate your sharing of ideas and information with
colleagues?
5.18 ± 0.27
4.84 ± 0.19
0.34 (−0.35 to 1.03)
23. How would you rate your dissemination of new ideas about care to
colleagues?
5.31 ± 0.27
3.89 ± 0.16
1.42 (0.75 to 2.09)*
24. How would you rate your ability to review your own practice?
5.22 ± 0.24
4.15 ± 0.14
1.07 (0.47 to 1.66)*
*p-value < 0.05.
online learning (including self-directed) and patientcentred learning consolidate theory with practice [12-14].
Given the multi-disciplinary nature of EBM, use of a BL
approach is appropriate. As demonstrated in our study,
lectures and online presentations should be used to
present foundation knowledge (e.g. research methods,
information literacy and critical appraisal techniques),
whilst small group activities should be used to consolidate
skills including critical appraisal and application to the
clinical scenario. Journal clubs are commonly used as
an interactive method of teaching and practicing EBM
in clinical practice [31]. The effectiveness of journal
clubs in increasing EBM competency remains unclear,
and further research is required to ascertain how they
could best be integrated in EBM teaching to further
promote learner competency [31].
Ilic et al. BMC Medical Education (2015) 15:39
This study was the first to utilise a RCT methodology
to examine the effectiveness of BL in EBM. The use
of qualitative data provided critical contextualisation of
quantitative results and further rigour to the study
through triangulation of data. The study was successfully
implemented across 14 teaching hospitals in Australia
and Malaysia. Competency in EBM was assessed by two
validated and psychometrically tested tools, although the
self-report questionnaire has not been previously validated. Whilst students were compliant in their uptake of
the teaching intervention, less than 30% completed the
outcome assessments. This unexpected low completion
rate may have underpowered the RCT. Students with a
higher ability and affiliation with the teaching content
are more likely to respond to survey requests and assessments in projects [32]. The low completion rate of outcome assessments for this RCT increases the risk of bias
in the study regarding the generalisability of results due
to the greater likelihood of students with a higher affiliation to EBM completing the outcome assessments. No
estimate of how long students, on average, engaged with
the online resources.
Students in the focus group discussions highlighted
the variability in how some tutors incorporated the
teaching materials within the BL approach. For example, some tutors repeated YouTube presentations
during class time, thereby impacting upon the need for
student self-directed learning outside of class. Future
implementation of a BL approach for EBM will require
strategies for training educators in how they effectively
teach using a BL approach. Few studies have examined
the cost-effectiveness of education strategies in medicine [33,34]. The current evidence base would suggest
equivalence in teaching strategies for EBM, yet no
published evidence on the cost associated with these
interventions is currently available. Better understanding of start-up and on-going costs will provide educators with valuable information that may influence the
type of educational strategy used to teach EBM. Information about cost-effectiveness and value is important given that start-up costs with the production of
e-learning resources are initially high, but dissipate
with continual use.
Conclusion
The current EBM demonstrates equivalence between
adopting a BL versus a DL approach to teaching EBM to
medical students. However, medical students receiving a
BL approach reported greater perceived self-efficacy and
application of EBM in the clinical environment. Future
research should focus on costs associated with teaching
EBM in order to identify a cost-effective strategy for
teaching EBM.
Page 9 of 10
Additional file
Additional file 1: Interview schedule used to guide focus group
discussions.
Competing interests
DI coordinates the EBM program for the MBBS degree at Monash University.
Authors’ contributions
DI contributed to the study concept and design, data collection and analysis
and interpretation of the data. RBN, PG, JT and EV contributed to the study
concept and design, and the interpretation of the data. All authors contributed
to the drafting and revision of the article and approved the final manuscript for
publication.
Authors’ information
DI is Associate Professor at the School of Public Health & Preventive Medicine,
Monash University. RBN is Professor at the Jeffrey Cheah School of Medicine
and Health Sciences, Monash University, Malaysia. PG is Professor at the Faculty
of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Australia. JKT is Associate
Professor at the Division of Biokinesiology and Physical Therapy, University of
Southern California, USA. EV is Associate Professor at the Gippsland Medical
School, Monash University, Australia.
Acknowledgements
Support for this publication has been provided by the Australian Government
Office for Learning and Teaching. The views expressed in this publication do
not necessarily reflect the views of the Australian Government Office for
Learning and Teaching.
Author details
1
Department of Epidemiology & Preventive Medicine, School of Public
Health & Preventive Medicine, Level 6, The Alfred Centre, 99 Commercial Rd,
Melbourne, VIC 3004, Australia. 2Jeffrey Cheah School of Medicine and Health
Sciences, Monash University, Johor Bahru, Malaysia. 3Faculty of Health
Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Robina, Australia. 4Division of
Biokinesiology and Physical Therapy, University of Southern California, Los
Angeles, USA. 5Gippsland Medical School, Monash University, Churchill,
Australia.
Received: 22 July 2014 Accepted: 19 February 2015
References
1. Finkel M, Brown H, Gerber L, Supino P. Teaching evidence-based medicine
to medical students. Med Teach. 2003;25:202–9.
2. Meats E, Heneghan C, Crilly M, Glasziou P. Evidence-based medicine teaching
in UK medical schools. Med Teach. 2009;31:332–7.
3. Ilic D, Hart W, Fiddes P, Misso M, Villanueva E. Adopting a blended learning
approach to teaching evidence based medicine: a mixed methods study.
BMC Med Educ. 2013;13:169.
4. Nair B, Coughlan J, Hensley M. Student and patient perspectives on bedside
teaching. Med Educ. 1997;31:341–6.
5. Straus S, Glasziou P, Richardson W, Haynes B. Evidence-based medicine: how to
practice and teach it. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone: Elsevier; 2011.
6. Ilic D. Assessing competency in Evidence Based Practice: strengths and
limitations of current tools in practice. BMC Med Educ. 2009;9:53.
7. Del Mar C, Glasziou P, Mayer D. Teaching evidence based medicine. BMJ.
2004;329:989.
8. Coomarasamy A, Khan K. What is the evidence that postgraduate teaching
in evidence based medicine changes anything? A systematic review BMJ.
2004;329:1017.
9. Ilic D, Maloney S. Methods of teaching medical trainees Evidence Based
Medicine: A systematic review. Med Educ. 2014;48:124–35.
10. Masie E. Blended learning: the magic is in the mix. In: Rossett A, editor. The
ASTD e-learning handbook. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2002.
11. Pashler H, McDaniel M, Rohrer D, Bjork R. Learning styles. Concepts Evid
Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2008;9:105–19.
Ilic et al. BMC Medical Education (2015) 15:39
12. Grasl M, Pokieser P, Gleiss A, Brandstaetter J, Sigmund T, Erovic B, et al. A
new blended learning concept for medical students in otolaryngology. Arch
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2012;138:358–66.
13. Lehmann R, Bosse H, Simon A, Nikendei C, Huwendiek S. An innovative
blended learning approach using virtual patients as preparation for skills
laboratory training: perceptions of students and tutors. BMC Med Educ.
2013;13:23.
14. Woltering V, Herrler A, Spitzer K, Spreckelsen C. Blended learning positively
affects students’ satisfaction and the role of the tutor in the problem-based
learning process: results of a mixed-method evaluation. Adv Health Sci
Educ. 2009;14:725–38.
15. Tashakkori A, Creswell J. Designing and conducting mixed methods
research. J Mixed Methods Res. 2007;1:3–8.
16. Ilic D, Bin Nordin R, Glasziou P, Tilson J, Villanueva E. Implementation of a
blended learning approach to teaching evidence based practice: a protocol
for a mixed methods study. BMC Med Educ. 2013;13:170.
17. Monash University. Evidence Based Practice [internet]. Available at;
http://guides.lib.monash.edu/medicine.
18. Ilic, D. Year3EBCP [internet] Available at; http://www.youtube.com/user/
Year3EBCP.
19. Fritsche L, Greenhalgh T, Falck-Ytter Y, Neumayer H, Kunz R. Do short courses
in evidence based medicine improve knowledge and skills? Validation of
Berlin questionnaire and before and after study of courses in evidence
based medicine. BMJ. 2002;325:1338–41.
20. Ilic D, Bin Nordin R, Glasziou P, Tilson J, Villanueva E. Development and
validation of the ACE tool: assessing medical trainees’ competency in
evidence based medicine. BMC Med Educ. 2014;14:114.
21. Upton D, Upton P. Development of an evidence-based practice questionnaire
for nurses. J Adv Nurs. 2006;53:454–8.
22. Silverman D. Qualitative Research: Theory, method and practices. London:
SAGE Publications; 2004.
23. Liamputtong P. Research methods in health. Foundations for evidence-based
practice. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press; 2010.
24. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol.
2006;3:77–101.
25. Astin J, Jenkins T, Moore L. Medical students’ perspective on the teaching of
medical statistics in the undergraduate medical curriculum. Stat Med.
2002;21:1003–6.
26. Hadley J, Wall D, Khan K. Learning needs analysis to guide teaching
evidence-based medicine: knowledge and beliefs amongst trainees from
various specialities. BMC Med Educ. 2007;7:11.
27. Bradley P, Oterholt C, Nordheim L, Bjorndal A. Medical students’ and tutors’
experiences of directed and self-directed learning programs in Evidence-Based
Medicine: A qualitative evaluation accompanying a randomized controlled trial.
Eval Rev. 2005;29:149–77.
28. Dorsch J, Aiyer M, Meyer L. Impact of an evidence-based medicine
curriculum on medical students’ attitudes and skills. J Med Libr Assoc.
2004;92:397–406.
29. Glasziou P, Heneghan C. The paths from research to improved health
outcomes. Evidence Based Nursing. 2005;8:36–8.
30. Ilic D, Forbes K. Undergraduate medical student perceptions and use of
Evidence Based Medicine: A qualitative study. BMC Med Educ. 2010;10:58.
31. Harris J, Kearley K, Heneghan C, Meats E, Roberts N, Perera R, et al. Are
journal clubs effective in supporting evidence-based decision making? A
systematic review. BEME Guide No. 16. Med Teach. 2011;33:9–23.
32. Porter S, Umbach P. Student survey response rates across institutions: Why
do they vary? Res High Educ. 2006;47:229–47.
33. Zendejas B, Wang A, Brydges R, Hamstra S, Cook D. Cost: the missing
outcome in simulation-based medical education research: a systematic
review. Surgery. 2013;153:160–76.
34. Varkey P, Murad M, Braun C, Grall K, Saoji V. A review of cost-effectiveness,
cost-containment and economics curricula in graduate medical education.
J Eval Clin Pract. 2010;16:1055–62.
Page 10 of 10
Submit your next manuscript to BioMed Central
and take full advantage of:
• Convenient online submission
• Thorough peer review
• No space constraints or color figure charges
• Immediate publication on acceptance
• Inclusion in PubMed, CAS, Scopus and Google Scholar
• Research which is freely available for redistribution
Submit your manuscript at
www.biomedcentral.com/submit
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
