Efficacy of a training program to support the application of the Guideline Evidence-based Health Information: a randomized controlled trial and process evaluation

BACKGROUND: The Guideline Evidence-based Health Information addresses health information providers and aims to improve the quality of health information. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of a training program for health information providers to support the application of the guideline. We expected the intervention to improve the quality of health information compared with providing the guideline alone. METHODS: In this superiority randomized controlled trial, providers responsible for producing and publishing health information were allocated 1:1 to the intervention (guideline and training program) and control (publicly available guideline) groups using computer-generated block randomization. The e-learning program (31 h, offered over 6-7 weeks) comprised modules on evidence-based medicine and the application of the guideline. Each provider committed to producing a single piece of health information informing a health-related decision on the topic of their choice. The primary outcome was the quality of health information, operationalized as adherence to the guideline recommendations, as measured using the Mapping Health Information Quality (MAPPinfo) checklist. Means were compared between groups using a t-test. The assessment and analyses were blinded to the group allocation. An accompanying process evaluation was conducted. RESULTS: We included 18 health information providers (nine in each group), with a total of 54 individual participants. Eight health information items were assessed in each group. The primary analysis estimated the mean MAPPinfo checklist values at 30.2% (95% CI, 24.6 to 35.9) for the intervention and at 22.7% (95% CI, 17.4 to 27.9) for the control group. The difference between groups was estimated at 7.6% (95% CI, - 0.2 to 15.3; p = 0.055). Individual and structural implementation barriers of the guideline recommendations were identified. CONCLUSIONS: We did not achieve the targeted sample size of 26 providers. A lack of resources was one of the main barriers to recruitment. Although our study did not provide conclusive evidence regarding the primary outcome, the participants rated the training program as relevant. Therefore, the training program will be made available to health information providers upon request. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry, ID: ISRCTN96941060. Registered on March 7, 2019. STUDY PROTOCOL: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-020-04287-1 (Trials 2020).

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Trials
Published
2026-10-30
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-026-10057-2
Primary Topic
Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Efficacy of a training program to support the application of the Guideline Evidence-based Health Information: a randomized controlled trial and process evaluation

Anke Steckelberg, Julia Lühnen, Birte Berger‐Höger, Burkhard Haastert et al.
Trials
Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
article

Efficacy of a training program to support the application of the Guideline Evidence-based Health Information: a randomized controlled trial and process evaluation

Anke Steckelberg, Julia Lühnen, Birte Berger‐Höger, Burkhard Haastert, Jana Hinneburg, Jürgen Kasper
article en

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Guideline Evidence-based Health Information addresses health information providers and aims to improve the quality of health information. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of a training program for health information providers to support the application of the guideline. We expected the intervention to improve the quality of health information compared with providing the guideline alone. METHODS: In this superiority randomized controlled trial, providers responsible for producing and publishing health information were allocated 1:1 to the intervention (guideline and training program) and control (publicly available guideline) groups using computer-generated block randomization. The e-learning program (31 h, offered over 6-7 weeks) comprised modules on evidence-based medicine and the application of the guideline. Each provider committed to producing a single piece of health information informing a health-related decision on the topic of their choice. The primary outcome was the quality of health information, operationalized as adherence to the guideline recommendations, as measured using the Mapping Health Information Quality (MAPPinfo) checklist. Means were compared between groups using a t-test. The assessment and analyses were blinded to the group allocation. An accompanying process evaluation was conducted. RESULTS: We included 18 health information providers (nine in each group), with a total of 54 individual participants. Eight health information items were assessed in each group. The primary analysis estimated the mean MAPPinfo checklist values at 30.2% (95% CI, 24.6 to 35.9) for the intervention and at 22.7% (95% CI, 17.4 to 27.9) for the control group. The difference between groups was estimated at 7.6% (95% CI, - 0.2 to 15.3; p = 0.055). Individual and structural implementation barriers of the guideline recommendations were identified. CONCLUSIONS: We did not achieve the targeted sample size of 26 providers. A lack of resources was one of the main barriers to recruitment. Although our study did not provide conclusive evidence regarding the primary outcome, the participants rated the training program as relevant. Therefore, the training program will be made available to health information providers upon request. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry, ID: ISRCTN96941060. Registered on March 7, 2019. STUDY PROTOCOL: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-020-04287-1 (Trials 2020).

TrialsVol. 27(1)
University of Bremen (DE), OsloMet – Oslo Metropolitan University (NO), Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin (DE), Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg (DE), Freie Universität Berlin (DE), Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin (DE)
Gemeinsame Bundesausschuss, Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 8%
Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon