Conclusion The study was not able to demonstrate any differences

Conclusion The study was not able to demonstrate any differences between e-learning and classroom teaching in drug dose calculations, with respect to learning outcome, certainty or risk of error. The overall learning outcome was without practical significance, and conversion of units was the only topic that was significantly improved after the course. An independent factor in favour of PARP signaling classroom teaching was weak pretest knowledge, while factors suggesting use of e-learning

could be the need for training in relevant work specific tasks and time effective repetition. Supplementary Material Reviewer comments: Click here to view.(149K, pdf) Author’s manuscript: Click here to view.(1.9M, pdf) Acknowledgments The authors wish to thank Innlandet and Oestfold Hospital Trusts and the healthcare administrations of Gjoevik, Hamar and Lillehammer municipalities for letting the nurses participate in the trial during work hours, and the Faculty of Medicine, Norwegian University of Science and Technology for preparing the CRFs for optical reading of the data. The authors thank Stian Lydersen, professor in medical statistics at the Regional Centre for Child and Adolescent Mental Health, Faculty of Medicine, Norwegian University of Science and Technology,

Trondheim for statistical advice. Footnotes Contributors: BOS was involved in the design making, and was responsible for drafting the study protocol and tests, performing the data collection, and also drafting the analyses and manuscript. IJ supervised the study, and contributed with substantial and useful comments and input during all phases. GKD contributed to the planning of the study tests and data collection, gave valuable input to the interpretation of the results, and participated in the drafting and revisions of the manuscript. PGF was the project leader and supervised the study, and also

made incalculable contributions during all phases. All authors approved the published version. Funding: The study was funded by research grants from the South-East Norway Health Authorities and Innlandet Hospital Trust. Competing interests: GKD was part of the group which developed the e-learning programme used in the study, and the Anacetrapib course was made commercially available from autumn 2009. Ethics approval: The Norwegian Data Inspectorate, represented by the Privacy Ombudsman for Research. Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed. Data sharing statement: The full protocol, the questionnaires and extra data are available by e-mailing the corresponding author: [email protected] The questionnaire is also available in English translation as a supplementary file.
Baars EW, Kooreman P. A 6-year comparative economic evaluation of healthcare costs and mortality rates of Dutch patients from conventional and CAM GPs. BMJ Open 2014;4:e005332.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>