Effectiveness of a Clinically Integrated e-Learning Course in Evidence-Based Medicine for Reproductive Health Training A Randomized Trial

Context For evidence-based practice to embed culturally in the workplace, teaching of evidence-based medicine(EBM) should be clinically integrated. In low-middle-in come countries (LMICs) there is a scarcity of EBM-trained clinical tutors, lack of protected time for teaching EBM, and poor access to relevant databases in languages other than English. Objective To evaluate the effects of a clinically integrated e-learning EBM course incorporating the World Health Organization( WHO) Reproductive Health Library(RHL) on knowledge, skills, and educational environment compared with traditional EBM teaching. Design, Setting, and Participants International cluster randomized trial conducted between April 2009 and November 2010 among postgraduate trainees in obstetrics-gynecology in 7 LMICs (Argentina, Brazil, Democratic Republic of the Congo, India, Philippines, South Africa, Thailand). Each training unit was randomized to an experimental clinically integrated course consisting of e-modules using the RHL for learning activities and trainee assessments (31 clusters, 123 participants) or to a control self-directed EBM course incorporating the RHL (29 clusters, 81 participants). A facilitator with EBM teaching experience was available at all teaching units. Courses were administered for 8 weeks, with assessments at baseline and 4 weeks after course completion. The study was completed in 24 experimental clusters (98 participants) and 22 control clusters (68 participants). Main Outcome Measures Primary outcomes were change in EBM knowledge (score range, 0-62) and skills (score range, 0-14). Secondary outcome was educational environment (5-point Likert scale anchored between 1 [strongly agree] and 5 [strongly disagree]). Results At baseline, the study groups were similar in age, year of training, and EBM-related attitudes and knowledge. After the trial, the experimental group had higher mean scores in knowledge (38.1 [95% CI, 36.7 to 39.4] in the control group vs 43.1 [95% CI, 42.0 to 44.1] in the experimental group; adjusted difference, 4.9 [95% CI, 2.9 to 6.8]; P