Learning by doing—teaching systematic review methods in 8 weeks

Li, Tianjing; Saldanha, Ian J.; Vedula, S. Swaroop; Yu, Tsung; Rosman, Lori; Twose, Claire; Goodman, Steven N.; Dickersin, Kay

doi:10.1002/jrsm.1111

Cited by 10 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our workshop participants expressed similar attitudes in Survey I, in which both the lectures and the hands‐on exercises were found to be useful. However, other studies have found overall preference for practical activities 33 , 35 . The participative and interactive format used in our workshops was perceived as beneficial for attendees to learn the EBD concepts.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 70%

Impact of Evidence‐Based Dentistry Workshops on Educators’ Use of Evidence in Teaching and Practice: A Pilot Study

Moreira

Leonardi-Dutra

Feres

et al. 2018

Journal of Dental Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aims of this pilot study were to evaluate the short-term impact of evidence-based dentistry (EBD) workshops on educators' use of clinical evidence in their clinical practice and educational activities and to identify barriers they encountered in implementing evidence in their teaching and clinical practice. Between April 2012 and January 2014, a series of EBD workshops was delivered to 31 dental faculty members and postdoctoral students at three Canadian dental schools. Survey I, assessing participants' perceptions of various aspects of the workshops, was administered immediately following the workshops. Survey II, evaluating the impact of the workshops on participants' EBD implementation, was conducted 10 to 31 months after their completion. Survey I was completed by all 31 participants (100% response rate); their mean scores ranged from 3.94 to 4.65 on a five-point scale. Survey II was completed by 20 participants (64.5% response rate; five postdoctoral students and 15 faculty members), using an online 20-item questionnaire. Of the respondents, 19 (95%) reported implementing EBD in their professional activities at that time, and 14 (70%) stated that the workshops had positively helped with EBD implementation. Eight respondents (40%) reported having experienced barriers to EBD implementation, while 15 (75%) reported that their patients/students welcomed use of EBD. The respondents reported believing that strategies such as increasing EBD education and dissemination and improving quality and accessibility of evidence would facilitate the transition to EBD practice. Reported barriers to EBD implementation included resistance and criticism from colleagues, difficulty in changing current practice model, and lack of time.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 70%

Impact of Evidence‐Based Dentistry Workshops on Educators’ Use of Evidence in Teaching and Practice: A Pilot Study

Moreira

Leonardi-Dutra

Feres

et al. 2018

Journal of Dental Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, the model allows participants easy access to peer reviewers through a peer discussion of their protocols. The participants may have played a role similar to that of teaching assistants in the previously reported university course, leading to the success of this workshop [26]. A notable success story is when one of the participants (MB), who was new to SR during the third WS, became a competent tutor in the eighth and ninth WSs, contributing greatly to the WS's sustainability.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

A model six-month workshop for developing systematic review protocols at teaching hospitals: action research and scholarly productivity

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Research engagement contributes to the improvement of patient care. A systematic review is a suitable first scholarly activity because it entails summarization of publicly available data and usually requires neither rigorous ethical review nor research funding. Methods This study aimed to develop a model workshop for healthcare staff to acquire skills in creating systematic review protocols based on their own clinical questions at teaching hospitals. We used an action research method to create a model workshop at four hospitals in Japan from April 2015 to March 2017. To improve the program, we solicited reflections using participant questionnaires for each lecture and examined the quality of homework submitted by participants after each lecture. We administered a revised final version of the workshop at five hospitals from April 2016 to March 2017. We evaluated the participants’ scholarly productivity related to these workshops. The observation period was a minimum of 2 years following the workshops. Results Most participants had never developed a formal clinical research protocol and voluntarily participated in the workshop. The action research was developed and implemented at nine teaching hospitals in Japan, including one university hospital. The study developed a model nine-step workshop curriculum: 1) Research question development, 2) Search strategy development, 3) Search strategy brush-up, 4) Exclusion and inclusion criteria development, 5) Risk of bias assessment planning, 6) Meta-analysis planning, 7) Subgroup and sensitivity analysis planning, 8) Planning the presentation of results, and 9) Presentation protocols. A total of 233 participants, including medical doctors and other health professionals, produced 414 research questions. Seventy-nine participants (34%) completed the workshop, and 47 review teams accomplished systematic review protocols. The participants published 13 peer-reviewed articles as a result of the workshop. Conclusions We developed a structured scholarly productive model workshop for healthcare staff working at hospitals. We found healthcare staff with clinical subspecialties were able to develop an unexpectedly high number of research questions through this workshop. Medical teachers at hospitals with prior systematic review experience could teach how to develop systematic review protocols using this model. Further research is needed to increase the academic productivity of such workshops. Trial registration UMIN (https://www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/), UMIN000017107 (4/15/2015), UMIN000025580 (1/10/2017).

show abstract

“…Faculty members were the primary instructors for all the courses, and the sole instructors for seven. Five articles (Briner & Walshe, 2014;Gorczynski et al, 2017;Groller et al, 2020;Li et al, 2014;Proly & Murza, 2009) explicitly mention librarian involvement either within the original course or as a modification for later offerings based on feedback. The course objectives generally focus on students developing an understanding of reviews and the skills to conduct one.…”

Section: Stand Alone Workhopsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The course objectives generally focus on students developing an understanding of reviews and the skills to conduct one. Some unique objectives include learning to teach others about systematic reviews (Li et al, 2014) and gaining project management skills and leadership experience (Proly & Murza, 2009). The articles present a variety of graded assignments designed to assess student learning, many of them tied to specific steps of the review process.…”

Section: Stand Alone Workhopsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Many evidence synthesis organizations including Cochrane, Joanna Briggs Institute, and the Campbell Collaboration offer fee-based workshops and courses that focus on KS methods (Cochrane, n.d.; Campbell Collaboration, n.d.; Joanna Briggs Institute, n.d.). SR instruction is also offered as credit-bearing courses to undergraduate or graduate students in post-secondary institutions (Himelhoch et al, 2015;Li et al, 2014). Some professional development workshops on KS methods are available at conferences.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Teaching Knowledge Synthesis Methodologies in a Higher Education Setting: A Scoping Review of Face-to-Face Instructional Programs

Premji

Hayden

Rutherford

2021

EBLIP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background – Knowledge synthesis (KS) reviews are increasingly being conducted and published. Librarians are frequently taking a role in training colleagues, faculty, graduate students, and others on aspects of knowledge syntheses methods. Objective – In order to inform the design of a workshop series, the authors undertook a scoping review to identify what and how knowledge synthesis methods are being taught in higher education settings, and to identify particularly challenging concepts or aspects of KS methods. Methods – The following databases were searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE & APA PsycInfo (via Ovid); LISA (via ProQuest); ERIC, Education Research Complete, Business Source Complete, Academic Search Complete, CINAHL, Library & Information Science Source, and SocIndex (via EBSCO); and Web of Science core collection. Comprehensive searches in each database were conducted on May 31, 2019 and updated on September 13, 2020. Relevant conferences and journals were hand searched, and forward and backward searching of the included articles was also done. Study selection was conducted by two independent reviews first by title/abstract and then using the full-text articles. Data extraction was completed by one individual and verified independently by a second individual. Discrepancies in study selection and data extraction were resolved by a third individual. Results – The authors identified 2,597 unique records, of which 48 full-text articles were evaluated for inclusion, leading to 17 included articles. 12 articles reported on credit courses and 5 articles focused on stand-alone workshops or workshop series. The courses/workshops were from a variety of disciplines, at institutions located in North America, Europe, New Zealand, and Africa. They were most often taught by faculty, followed by librarians, and sometimes involved teaching assistants. Conclusions – The instructional content and methods varied across the courses and workshops, as did the level of detail reported in the articles. Hands-on activities and active learning strategies were heavily encouraged by the authors. More research on the effectiveness of specific teaching strategies is needed in order to determine the optimal ways to teach KS methods.

show abstract

Learning by doing—teaching systematic review methods in 8 weeks

Abstract: Our experiences have led us to remain committed to a hands-on approach. Our course serves as a bridge between classroom learning and real-world practice, and provides an example of teaching systematic review.

Cited by 10 publications

References 26 publications

Impact of Evidence‐Based Dentistry Workshops on Educators’ Use of Evidence in Teaching and Practice: A Pilot Study

Impact of Evidence‐Based Dentistry Workshops on Educators’ Use of Evidence in Teaching and Practice: A Pilot Study

A model six-month workshop for developing systematic review protocols at teaching hospitals: action research and scholarly productivity

Teaching Knowledge Synthesis Methodologies in a Higher Education Setting: A Scoping Review of Face-to-Face Instructional Programs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About