You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 7, Issue 2
  • Multilayered and digitally structured presentation formats of trustworthy recommendations: a combined survey and randomised trial

Responses

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

XML
Evidence based practice
Research
Multilayered and digitally structured presentation formats of trustworthy recommendations: a combined survey and randomised trial
Compose a Response to This Article
Compose Response

More information about text formats

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on: 14 February 2017
    Guidelines: Physicians' preference, improved knowledge, implementation, and improved patient outcomes
    • Mengyang Di, Researcher in methodology Brown University

    Several concerns/comments came up while I was reading this interesting study. The association between outcomes of interest (preference and knowledge) and different interventions (two formats of guideline presentation) might not be as strong or might be even weaker for the following reasons. 1. Preference: Noticeably, there were some differences in preferred knowledge source between the two groups at baseline- 5% more participants in the standard format group preferred that from colleagues. This might reflect somewhat varied levels of acceptance for practice guidelines or other evidence sources of high quality and more reliable in the two groups. This would partially explain the difference in proportions of participants who preferred the formats they respectively saw in the interventions. 2. Knowledge: The authors did not test the level of medical knowledge or practice experience in the two groups at baseline. It is possible that participants in the multilayered format group had a better knowledge fund or more experienced in the issues addressed in the guideline before the interventions. Thus, they scored slightly better in the MCQs (not statistically significant in the study) than the standard format group. Additionally, the MCQs might not cover all the contents or information delivered through the interventions. Therefore, the small difference in MCQs performance may not accurately reflect the difference of knowledge levels in the two groups after the interventions.

    ...Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.