Taylor 2004.
| Methods | Trial design: RCT Power calculation: Y Funding: NHS R&D Executive: evaluating methods to practice the implementation of R&D (project no. IMP 12‐9) Ethics approval: Y Lost to follow‐up: questionnaire: 40; critique: 81 |
|
| Participants | Characteristics of participants: healthcare practitioners working within the South and West Regional Health Authority Exclusion criteria: attendance at a previous Critical Appraisal Skills (CAS) workshop No. randomised: 145 No. analysed: questionnaire: 105, critique: 64 Other characteristics: age: (majority of participants) 40 to 49 years: IG 37 (50.6%), CG 32 (44.4%); sex: IG: M 48, F 25, CG: M 46, F 26 Setting: workshop Country: England |
|
| Interventions | Intervention group: half‐day workshop based on Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP). The 3‐hour workshop is focused on facilitating a process whereby research evidence is systematically examined to assess study validity, the results and relevance to a clinical scenario. The workshop begins with an introductory talk (˜60 minutes) about the importance of evidence‐based healthcare practice, theoretical basis for systematic reviews and the JAMA appraisal guideline. Small group work (˜30 minutes) and then a plenary session run by 3 to 4 individuals each with formal training in health services research methods. Theory‐based intervention: N Control group: assigned to a waiting list to attend a workshop Intervention deliverer: not reported |
|
| Outcomes | Outcomes measured: (using a validated tool) 18 multiple‐choice questions focused on knowledge of principles for appraising evidence, attitudes towards the use of evidence about healthcare, evidence seeking behaviours, and perceived confidence in appraising evidence; critical appraisal skills were assessed through the appraisal of a systematic review. Distal follow‐up interval: 6 months (post intervention) Losses to follow‐up: questionnaire: 40; critique: 81 N randomised: 72 IG, 73 CG N completing follow‐up: questionnaire: 44 IG, 61 CG; critique: 21 IG, 43 CG Reasons for loss to follow‐up: not reported |
|
| Notes | It is plausible that respondents may have differed in some way to non‐respondents, such as in their level of motivation, and may therefore responded more positively to this educational intervention. However, this was not supported by the poor outcome response rate. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | An independent researcher used computer‐generated codes to allocate applicants randomly to intervention or control group (p.2) |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Not reported |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes | Low risk | An independent researcher used computer‐generated codes to allocate applicants randomly to intervention or control group (p.2) The researchers who scored study outcomes were blinded to the allocation of participants at all times. (p.2) |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | High risk | Not reported |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | Expected outcomes reported |
| Other bias | High risk | The number of participants recruited was less than that intended, not all participants provided outcomes and the trial was about 20 per cent under the desired power. |
CG: control group IG: intervention group JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association RCT: randomised controlled trial