Research Question:          How can technology support knowledge translation?  

Articles:

1. Technology-enabled knowledge translation: frameworks to promote research and practice. Ho K, Bloch R, Gondocz T, Laprise R, Perrier L, Ryan D, Thivierge R, and Wenghofer E. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions 2004;24:90-99. PubMed Abstract

2. Standardizing evaluation of on-line continuing medical education: physician knowledge, attitudes, and reflection on practice. Casebeer L, Kristofco RE, Strasser S, Reilly M, Krishnamoorthy P, Rabin A, Zheng S, Karp S, and Myers L. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions 2004;24:68-75. PubMed Abstract

3. Doctors’ experience with handheld computers in clinical practice: qualitative study. McAlearney AS, Schweikhart SB, Medow MA. BMJ 2004;328(7449):1162.  Full-Text

Summary:

Ho et al. describe a framework for a systematic approach to ‘technology enabled knowledge translation’ (TEKT).  They discuss opportunities, types of knowledge and its acquisition, the process of knowledge translation, factors to consider when developing a TEKT project, and evaluation issues. Two studies exemplify some of these points.  Casebeer et al. examined the feasibility of implementing standardized evaluation templates across on-line CME courses representing different CME providers, server platforms, and clinical topics and then tested the effectiveness of 30 on-line CME courses in a time series trial.  The results showed that the main reason for accessing a course was a need to update clinical knowledge, the most important course characteristic was quality of content, and the largest sources of dissatisfaction were a requirement for outside software downloads and too little interaction. Mean knowledge scores increased from 58.1% to 75.6% at post-test and decreased to 68.2% four weeks following the course. Case-based formats were more effective than text-based courses. The majority reported intentions to make changes on the pre-test and post-test, although the type of change changed, and the actual change reported at follow-up also differed.  McAlearney et al. conducted focus groups with 54 physicians to examine their experiences with handheld computers. The sample consisted of 17% ‘non-users’, 20% ‘niche users’, 50% ‘routine users’, and 13% ‘power users’. The computers were used for point of care assistance, patient information, administrative functions, research activities, and medical education. Users  reported that the computers enhanced productivity, quality of patient care, and service. The main barriers to use  were personal issues (ie. eyesight, comfort with the device) and the device itself (ie. limited memory, speed of data exchange). Participants were concerned about dependency on handheld computers and potential changes to practice.

Implications:

§         The impact of new technologies can be measured by quantitative and qualitative methods, as in any KT or CE strategy

§         Both these technologies (on-line CME and handhelds) show promise, though closer examination of their impact, particularly in the clinical setting, is required.

Further reading:

Designing effective on-line continuing medical education. Zimitat C. Medical Teacher 2001;23(2):117-122. PubMed Abstract

Handheld computers. Al-Ubaydli M. BMJ 2004;328(7449):1181-1184. Full-Text

Search the RDRB (Research & Development Resource Base): For more articles search the RDRB - available at no cost online at: http://www.cme.utoronto.ca/search.

Some keywords to use: online CME; educational technology; handheld computer; personal digital assistant

Do you have a topic for us? Write to Laure Perrier at rdrb.cme@utoronto.ca.