Background
Educational meetings are widely used for continuing medical education. Previous reviews found that interactive workshops resulted in moderately large improvements in professional practice, whereas didactic sessions did not.

Objectives
To assess the effects of educational meetings on professional practice and healthcare outcomes.

Search methods
We updated previous searches by searching the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group Trials Register and pending file, from 1999 to March 2006.

Selection criteria
Randomised controlled trials of educational meetings that reported an objective measure of professional practice or healthcare outcomes.

Data collection and analysis
Two authors independently extracted data and assessed study quality. Studies with a low or moderate risk of bias and that reported baseline data were included in the primary analysis. They were weighted according to the number of health professionals participating. For each comparison, we calculated the risk difference (RD) for dichotomous outcomes, adjusted for baseline compliance; and for continuous outcomes the percentage change relative to the control group average after the intervention, adjusted for baseline performance. Professional and patient outcomes were analysed separately. We considered 10 factors to explain heterogeneity of effect estimates using weighted meta-regression supplemented by visual analysis of bubble and box plots.

Main results
In updating the review, 49 new studies were identified for inclusion. A total of 81 trials involving more than 11,000 health professionals are now included in the review. Based on 30 trials (36 comparisons), the median adjusted RD in compliance with desired practice was 6% (interquartile range 1.8 to 15.9) when any intervention in which educational meetings were a component was compared to no intervention. Educational meetings alone had similar effects (median adjusted RD 6%, interquartile range 2.9 to 15.3; based on 21 comparisons in 19 trials). For continuous outcomes the median adjusted percentage change relative to control was 10% (interquartile range 8 to 32%; 5 trials). For patient outcomes the median adjusted RD in achievement of treatment goals was 3.0 (interquartile range 0.1 to 4.0; 5 trials). Based on univariate meta-regression analyses of the 36 comparisons with dichotomous outcomes for professional practice, higher attendance at the educational meetings was associated with larger adjusted RDs (P < 0.01); mixed interactive and didactic education meetings (median adjusted RD 13.6) were more effective than either didactic meetings (RD 6.9) or interactive meetings (RD 3.0). Educational meetings did not appear to be effective for complex behaviours (adjusted RD -0.3) compared to less complex behaviours; they appeared to be less effective for less serious outcomes (RD 2.9) than for more serious outcomes.

Authors' conclusions
Educational meetings alone or combined with other interventions, can improve professional practice and healthcare outcomes for the patients. The effect is most likely to be small and similar to other types of continuing medical education, such as audit and feedback, and educational outreach visits. Strategies to increase attendance at educational meetings, using mixed interactive and didactic formats, and focusing on outcomes that are likely to be perceived as serious may increase the effectiveness of educational meetings. Educational meetings alone are not likely to be effective for changing complex behaviours.

Continuing education meetings and workshops: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes

It is thought that between a third and a half of all medicines1
There are many causes of non-adherence but they fall into two overlapping categories: intentional and unintentional. Unintentional non-adherence occurs when the patient wants to follow the agreed treatment but is prevented from doing so by barriers that are beyond their control. Examples include poor recall or difficulties in understanding the instructions, problems with using the treatment, inability to pay for the treatment, or simply forgetting to take it. prescribed for long-term conditions are not taken as recommended. If the prescription is appropriate, then this may represent a loss to patients, the healthcare system and society. The costs are both personal and economic. Adherence presumes an agreement between prescriber and patient about the prescriber’s recommendations. Adherence to medicines is defined as the extent to which the patient’s action matches the agreed recommendations. Non-adherence may limit the benefits of medicines, resulting in lack of improvement, or deterioration, in health. The economic costs are not limited to wasted medicines but also include the knock-on costs arising from increased demands for healthcare if health deteriorates. Non-adherence should not be seen as the patient’s problem. It represents a fundamental limitation in the delivery of healthcare, often because of a failure to fully agree the prescription in the first place or to identify and provide the support that patients need later on. Addressing non-adherence is not about getting patients to take more medicines per se. Rather, it starts with an exploration of patients’ perspectives of medicines and the reasons why they may not want or are unable to use them. Healthcare professionals have a duty to help patients make informed decisions about treatment and use appropriately prescribed medicines to best effect

Medicines adherence: Involving patients in decisions about prescribed medicines and supporting adherence

PURPOSE The inverse care law states that the availability of good medical care tends to vary inversely with the need for it in the population served, but there is little research on how the inverse care law actually operates. METHODS A questionnaire study was carried out on 3,044 National Health Ser- vice (NHS) patients attending 26 general practitioners (GPs); 16 in poor areas (most deprived) and 10 in affl uent areas (least deprived) in the west of Scotland. Data were collected on demographic and socioeconomic factors, health vari- ables, and a range of factors relating to quality of care. RESULTS Compared with patients in least deprived areas, patients in the most deprived areas had a greater number of psychological problems, more long- term illness, more multimorbidity, and more chronic health problems. Access to care generally took longer, and satisfaction with access was signifi cantly lower in the most deprived areas. Patients in the most deprived areas had more prob- lems to discuss (especially psychosocial), yet clinical encounter length was gener- ally shorter. GP stress was higher and patient enablement was lower in encoun- ters dealing with psychosocial problems in the most deprived areas. Variation in patient enablement between GPs was related to both GP empathy and severity of deprivation. CONCLUSIONS The increased burden of ill health and multimorbidity in poor communities results in high demands on clinical encounters in primary care. Poorer access, less time, higher GP stress, and lower patient enablement are some of the ways that the inverse care law continues to operate within the NHS and confounds attempts to narrow health inequalities.

https://www.annfammed.org/content/annalsfm/5/6/503.full.pdf

The Inverse Care Law: Clinical Primary Care Encounters in Deprived and Affluent Areas of Scotland

Importance Time constraints, technology, and administrative demands of modern medicine often impede the human connection that is central to clinical care, contributing to physician and patient dissatisfaction. Objective To identify evidence and narrative-based practices that promote clinician presence, a state of awareness, focus, and attention with the intent to understand patients. Evidence Review Preliminary practices were derived through a systematic literature review (from January 1997 to August 2017, with a subsequent bridge search to September 2019) of effective interpersonal interventions; observations of primary care encounters in 3 diverse clinics (n = 27 encounters); and qualitative interviews with physicians (n = 10), patients (n = 27), and nonmedical professionals whose occupations involve intense interpersonal interactions (eg, firefighter, chaplain, social worker; n = 30). After evidence synthesis, promising practices were reviewed in a 3-round modified Delphi process by a panel of 14 researchers, clinicians, patients, caregivers, and health system leaders. Panelists rated each practice using 9-point Likert scales (−4 to +4) that reflected the potential effect on patient and clinician experience and feasibility of implementation; after the third round, panelists selected their “top 5” practices from among those with median ratings of at least +2 for all 3 criteria. Final recommendations incorporate elements from all highly rated practices and emphasize the practices with the greatest number of panelist votes. Findings The systematic literature review (n = 73 studies) and qualitative research activities yielded 31 preliminary practices. Following evidence synthesis, 13 distinct practices were reviewed by the Delphi panel, 8 of which met criteria for inclusion and were combined into a final set of 5 recommendations: (1) prepare with intention (take a moment to prepare and focus before greeting a patient); (2) listen intently and completely (sit down, lean forward, avoid interruptions); (3) agree on what matters most (find out what the patient cares about and incorporate these priorities into the visit agenda); (4) connect with the patient’s story (consider life circumstances that influence the patient’s health; acknowledge positive efforts; celebrate successes); and (5) explore emotional cues (notice, name, and validate the patient’s emotions). Conclusions and Relevance This mixed-methods study identified 5 practices that have the potential to enhance physician presence and meaningful connection with patients in the clinical encounter. Evaluation and validation of the outcomes associated with implementing the 5 practices is needed, along with system-level interventions to create a supportive environment for implementation.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/articlepdf/2758456/jama_zulman_2020_sc_190007.pdf

Practices to Foster Physician Presence and Connection With Patients in the Clinical Encounter.

Summary
Background Symptoms of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease have a substantial impact on patients’ everyday lives.

Aim  To develop and test a short questionnaire to aid patient–doctor communication.

Methods  The Gastro-oesophageal Reflux Disease Impact Scale was developed from a systematic literature review, focus groups of patients and primary care physicians, and patient cognitive interviews. A psychometric validation study was conducted based on two consultations in new (n = 100) or chronic (n = 105) gastro-oesophageal reflux disease patients.

Results  The Gastro-oesophageal Reflux Disease Impact Scale demonstrated internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha ranged from 0.68 to 0.82), reproducibility (intraclass correlation coefficient in stable patients ranged from 0.61 to 0.72) and construct validity (Spearman correlations with Quality of Life in Reflux and Dyspepsia instrument and Reflux Disease Questionnaire: 0.5–0.8 in both patient groups). Effect sizes in new and chronic gastro-oesophageal reflux disease patients ranged from 0.9 to 1.5 and 0.32 to 0.42, respectively. Doctors reported altering their treatment decision based on information provided by the Gastro-oesophageal Reflux Disease Impact Scale in 35% of patients, and 77% of doctors found it to be useful.

Conclusions  The Gastro-oesophageal Reflux Disease Impact Scale demonstrated good psychometric properties in newly diagnosed gastro-oesophageal reflux disease patients and those already receiving treatment. This simple communication tool is a useful aid for managing primary care patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1365-2036.2007.03343.x

The gastro-oesophageal reflux disease impact scale: a patient management tool for primary care.

Objective To assess the effect of patient completed agenda forms for the consultation and doctors' education on identifying patients' agendas on the outcome of consultations.

Design Randomised controlled trial.

Setting General practices in Leicestershire and Nottinghamshire, United Kingdom.

Participants 46 general practitioners and 976 patients.

Interventions Education for general practitioners, with an embedded clustered randomised controlled trial of a patient agenda form.

Main outcome measures Number of problems identified, time required to manage each problem, duration of consultations, number of problems raised after the doctor considered the consultation finished (“by the way” questions), and patient satisfaction.

Results Data were available from 45 doctors (98%) and 857 patients (88%). The number of problems identified in each consultation increased by 0.2 (95% confidence interval 0.1 to 0.4) with the agenda form, by 0.3 (0.1 to 0.6) with education, and by 0.5 (0.3 to 0.7) with both interventions. The time required to manage each problem was not affected. The duration of consultations with the agenda form was increased by 0.9 minutes (0.3 to1.5 minutes) and with the combined intervention by 1.9 minutes (1.0 to 2.8 minutes). Patient satisfaction with the depth of the doctor-patient relationship was increased with the agenda form. The occurrence of “by the way” presentations did not change.

Conclusion A patient completed agenda form before the consultation or general practitioner education about the agenda form, or both, enabled the identification of more problems in consultations even though consultations were longer.

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/332/7552/1238.full.pdf

Effect of patient completed agenda forms and doctors' education about the agenda on the outcome of consultations : randomised controlled trial

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

J.F. Middleton

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

Effect of patient completed agenda forms and doctors' education about the agenda on the outcome of consultations : randomised controlled trial