Developing information literacy skills in pre-registration nurses: a randomised controlled trial Dr...
-
Upload
shannon-taylor -
Category
Documents
-
view
220 -
download
0
Transcript of Developing information literacy skills in pre-registration nurses: a randomised controlled trial Dr...
Developing information literacy skills in pre-registration nurses: a randomised
controlled trial
Dr Alison Brettle – Research Fellow School of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Salford
Mike Raynor – Information Specialist, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence
(NICE)
Background to the study
• Increase in demand for searching skills to support evidence-based practice (EBP) at pre-registration level
•Pressure growing for remote delivery of searching skills for evidence-based practice
•Opportunity to measure the efficacy of an online resource for teaching information skills
The University of Salford
Objectives
Do pre-registration nurses’ information skills improve following a teaching intervention?
Is an online tutorial at least as good as face-to-face instruction for teaching information skills?
The session content
What is a database?Google and gatewaysScoping searchesSelection of keywordsPICOSynonyms TruncationRetrieving the full-text of articles
Interactions: live screen
Methods: data collection protocol
Search exercise 1 and demographic data
collection.
Intervention administered
Search exercise 2 and qualitative data collection
‘Search histories 2’ e-mailed to facilitators
Search histories 1 and 2 compared using SPSS
‘Search histories 1’ e-mailed to facilitators
Study group
Methods: Flow of participants through the study
Assessed for eligibility (all students March 2008 intake) (n=93)
Excluded (n=0) Didn’t attend session (n=16)
Randomised n=77
Online Tutorial n=40 Received tutorial n=36 Did not receive tutorial n=4
Face to face n=37 Received face to face n=37 Did not receive face to face n=0
Analysed n= 36 pre-test; 34 post-test Excluded from analysis n=2 post-test (failed to complete search exercise)
Lost to follow up n=0 Discontinued intervention n=2
Lost to follow up n=0 Discontinued intervention n=2
Analysed n=37 pre-test; 35 post-test Excluded from analysis: n=2 post test (failed to complete search exercise)
Scoring the search histories
Pre-test“Why is hand washing effective for infection control?”Correct use of Boolean ‘AND’Correct use of Boolean ‘OR’Use of truncationCorrect selection of keywordsCorrect use of synonyms
Post-test
“Discuss the role of the nurse in the care of the dying”
Results
Comparison Means P Value Result
Face-to-face Pre-test=0.41Post-test=2.23
0.001 (Wilcoxon signed ranks)
Improvement in ability to search
Online Pre-test=0.35Post-test=1.77
<0.001 (Wilcoxon signed ranks)
Improvement in ability to search
Pre-tests Face-to-face=0.41Online=0.35
0.588 (Mann Whitney U)
No difference
Post-tests Face-to-face=2.23Online=1.77
0.263 (Mann Whitney U)
No difference
Follow-up face to face
Post-test=2.23Follow-up=1.56
0.216 (Mann Whitney U)
No degradation of skills
Follow-up online Post-test=1.77Follow-up=1.25
0.505 (Mann Whitney U)
No degradation of skills
Other data
Demographic data showed both groups were fairly similar
Qualitative data showed majority in favour of online method
“I enjoyed working through session”
“You could work at your own pace, felt relaxed, no pressure to keep up”
“..there was help if needed”
“..could discuss problems with peers”
Very few dislikes
“no personal touch…” “I do like face to face training so if
questions need to be asked they can..”
“I did not understand any of the questions, I don’t know a great deal about computers only the basics, I felt that the session was of no use to me at all”
“I ended up feeling frustrated...I am now confused”
Conclusions
Positive improvement but very small
This improvement is the same for face-to-face or online delivery
Online method is at least as effective as face-to-face for teaching information skills
Skills retention is the same at 6 weeks