Cited by 693Innovations in Medical EducationHealth Policy Implementation ScienceHealth Sciences Research and Education

Knowledge transfer for the management of dementia: a cluster-randomised trial of blended learning in general practice

Open access
Vollmar, Horst C, Mayer, Herbert, Ostermann, Thomas, Butzlaff, Martin E, Sandars, John E, Wilm, Stefan, Rieger, Monika A·2010·Implementation Science

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The implementation of new medical knowledge into general practice is a complex process. Blended learning may offer an effective and efficient educational intervention to reduce the knowledge-to-practice gap. The aim of this study was to compare knowledge acquisition about dementia management between a blended learning approach using online modules in addition to quality circles (QCs) and QCs alone. METHODS: In this cluster-randomised trial with QCs as clusters and general practitioners (GPs) as participants, 389 GPs from 26 QCs in the western part of Germany were invited to participate. Data on the GPs' knowledge were obtained at three points in time by means of a questionnaire survey. Primary outcome was the knowledge gain before and after the interventions. A subgroup analysis of the users of the online modules was performed. RESULTS: 166 GPs were available for analysis and filled out a knowledge test at least two times. A significant increase of knowledge was found in both groups that indicated positive learning effects of both approaches. However, there was no significant difference between the groups. A subgroup analysis of the GPs who self-reported that they had actually used the online modules showed that they had a significant increase in their knowledge scores. CONCLUSION: A blended learning approach was not superior to a QCs approach for improving knowledge about dementia management. However, a subgroup of GPs who were motivated to actually use the online modules had a gain in knowledge. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN36550981.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1748-5908-5-1

Cites

69 of 69 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In a review of 235 implementation studies, less than 25% employed theory in any way, and only 6% were explicitly theory-based.

    “For example, in a review of 235 implementation studies, less than 25% of the studies employed theory in any way, and only 6% were explicitly theory-based [39].”
  • Our inability to determine how, why, when, and for whom implementation strategies are effective is hampered in large part by the absence of detailed descriptions of implementation strategies, the use of inconsistent language, and the lack of clear theoretical justification for the selection of specific strategies.

    “Our inability to determine how, why, when, and for whom these strategies are effective is hampered in large part by the absence of detailed descriptions of implementation strategies [40], the use of inconsistent language [44], and the lack of clear theoretical justification for the selection of specific strategies [39].”
  • Our inability to determine how, why, when, and for whom implementation strategies are effective is hampered in large part by the absence of detailed descriptions of implementation strategies, the use of inconsistent language, and the lack of clear theoretical justification for the selection of specific strategies.

    “Our inability to determine how, why, when, and for whom these strategies are effective is hampered in large part by the absence of detailed descriptions of implementation strategies [40], the use of inconsistent language [44], and the lack of clear theoretical justification for the selection of specific strategies [39].”
  • Theory has been drastically underutilized and underspecified in implementation research.

    “Yet, theory has been drastically underutilized and underspecified in implementation research [38-40].”
  • There is confusion surrounding definitions and terminology within the still-evolving field of dissemination and implementation.

    “Given the confusion surrounding definitions and terminology within the still-evolving field of dissemination and implementation [44,45], grant proposals need to employ consistent language, clear definitions for constructs, and the most valid and reliable measures for the constructs that correspond to the guiding conceptual framework or theoretical model.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Redaèlli M Koneczny N Vollmar HC Schürer C Löscher S Butzlaff M How can National Guidelines be implemented successfully in primary care? Experiences of the German Guideline - Implementation - Trial Asthma (Leitlinien-Implementierungs-Studie L.I.S.A.) 15th Wonca Europe Conference and 32nd SSMG/SGAM Congress: 16-19.9.2009 2009; Basel 2009 Suppl 175 Swiss Medical Weekly 165S OP-209
  2. Grimshaw JM Thomas RE MacLennan G Fraser C Ramsay CR Vale L Whitty P Eccles MP Matowe L Shirran L Wensing M Dijkstra R Donaldson C Effectiveness and efficiency of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies Health Technol Assess 2004 8 6 1 72 14960256

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vollmar, H. C., Mayer, H., Ostermann, T., Butzlaff, M. E., Sandars, J. E., Wilm, S., & Rieger, M. A.
Affiliations
  • Witten/Herdecke University (DE)
  • University of Leeds (GB)
Corresponding author
Vollmar, Horst C
Venue
Implementation Science
Published
2010-01-04
Volume
5
Issue
1
Pages
1-1
ISSN
1748-5908 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2171349117
Cited by
693
References
69
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 142 · 2020: 79 · 2019: 46 · 2018: 68 · 2017: 95 · 2016: 82 · 2015: 46 · 2014: 32 · 2013: 28 · 2012: 20
FWCI
20.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Implementation Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Edge Hill University Research Information Repository (Edge Hill University) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Publikationsdatenbank der Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft (Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DZNE Pub (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Fraunhofer-Publica (Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
Keywords
dementia management, knowledge transfer, blended learning, general practitioners, quality circles, online learning modules, knowledge-practice gap, continuing medical education, knowledge acquisition

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review