Background: Educational meetings are used widely by health personnel to provide continuing medical education and to promote implementation of innovations or translate new knowledge to change practice within healthcare systems. Previous reviews have concluded that educational meetings can result in small changes in behaviour, but that effects vary considerably. Investigations into which characteristics of educational meetings might lead to greater impact have yielded varying results, and factors that might explain heterogeneity in effects remain unclear. This is the second update of this Cochrane Review. Objectives: • To assess the effects of educational meetings on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. • To investigate factors that might explain the heterogeneity of these effects. Search methods: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ERIC, Science Citation Index Expanded (ISI Web of Knowledge), and Social Sciences Citation Index (last search in November 2016). Selection criteria: We sought randomised trials examining the effects of educational meetings on professional practice and patient outcomes. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. One review author assessed the certainty of evidence (GRADE) and discussed with a second review author. We included studies in the primary analysis that reported baseline data and that we judged to be at low or unclear risk of bias. For each comparison of dichotomous outcomes, we measured treatment effect as risk difference adjusted for baseline compliance. We expressed adjusted risk difference values as percentages, and we noted that values greater than zero favour educational meetings. For continuous outcomes, we measured treatment effect as per cent change relative to the control group mean post test, adjusted for baseline performance; we expressed values as percentages and noted that values greater than zero favour educational meetings. We report means and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and, when appropriate, medians and interquartile ranges to facilitate comparisons to previous versions of this review. We analysed professional and patient outcomes separately and analysed 22 variables that were hypothesised a priori to explain heterogeneity. We explored heterogeneity by using univariate meta-regression and by inspecting violin plots. Main results: We included 215 studies involving more than 28,167 health professionals, including 142 new studies for this update. Educational meetings as the single intervention or the main component of a multi-faceted intervention compared with no intervention. • Probably slightly improve compliance with desired practice when compared with no intervention (65 comparisons, 7868 health professionals for dichotomous outcomes (adjusted risk difference 6.79%, 95% CI 6.62% to 6.97%; median 4.00%; interquartile range 0.29% to 13.00%); 28 comparisons, 2577 health professionals for continuous outcomes (adjusted relative percentage change 44.36%, 95% CI 41.98% to 46.75%; median 20.00%; interquartile range 6.00% to 65.00%)). • Probably slightly improve patient outcomes compared with no intervention (15 comparisons, 2530 health professionals for dichotomous outcomes (adjusted risk difference 3.30%, 95% CI 3.10% to 3.51%; median 0.10%; interquartile range 0.00% to 4.00%); 28 comparisons, 2294 health professionals for continuous outcomes (adjusted relative percentage change 8.35%, 95% CI 7.46% to 9.24%; median 2.00%; interquartile range -1.00% to 21.00%)). The certainty of evidence for this comparison is moderate. Educational meetings alone compared with other interventions. • May improve compliance with desired practice when compared with other interventions (6 studies, 1402 health professionals for dichotomous outcomes (adjusted risk difference 9.99%, 95% CI 9.47% to 10.52%; median 16.5%; interquartile range 0.80% to 16.50%); 2 studies, 72 health professionals for continuous outcomes (adjusted relative percentage change 12.00%, 95% CI 9.16% to 14.84%; median 12.00%; interquartile range 0.00% to 24.00%)). No studies met the inclusion criteria for patient outcome measurements. The certainty of evidence for this comparison is low. Interactive educational meetings compared with didactic (lecture-based) educational meetings. • We are uncertain of effects on compliance with desired practice (3 studies, 370 health professionals for dichotomous outcomes; 1 study, 192 health professionals for continuous outcomes) or on patient outcomes (1 study, 54 health professionals for continuous outcomes), as the certainty of evidence is very low. Any other comparison of different formats and durations of educational meetings. • We are uncertain of effects on compliance with desired practice (1 study, 19 health professionals for dichotomous outcomes; 1 study, 20 health professionals for continuous outcomes) or on patient outcomes (1 study, 113 health professionals for continuous outcomes), as the certainty of evidence is very low. Factors that might explain heterogeneity of effects. Meta-regression suggests that larger estimates of effect are associated with studies judged to be at high risk of bias, with studies that had unit of analysis errors, and with studies in which the unit of analysis was the provider rather than the patient. Improved compliance with desired practice may be associated with: shorter meetings; poor baseline compliance; better attendance; shorter follow-up; professionals provided with additional take-home material; explicit building of educational meetings on theory; targeting of low- versus high-complexity behaviours; targeting of outcomes with high versus low importance; goal of increasing rather than decreasing behaviour; teaching by opinion leaders; and use of didactic versus interactive teaching methods. Pre-specified exploratory analyses of behaviour change techniques suggest that improved compliance with desired practice may be associated with use of a greater number of behaviour change techniques; goal-setting; provision of feedback; provision for social comparison; and provision for social support. Compliance may be decreased by the use of follow-up prompts, skills training, and barrier identification techniques. Authors' conclusions: Compared with no intervention, educational meetings as the main component of an intervention probably slightly improve professional practice and, to a lesser extent, patient outcomes. Educational meetings may improve compliance with desired practice to a greater extent than other kinds of behaviour change interventions, such as text messages, fees, or office systems. Our findings suggest that multi-strategy approaches might positively influence the effects of educational meetings. Additional trials of educational meetings compared with no intervention are unlikely to change the review findings; therefore we will not further update this review comparison in the future. However, we note that randomised trials comparing different types of education are needed.
BACKGROUND: Clinical practice is not always evidence-based and, therefore, may not optimise patient outcomes. Local opinion leaders (OLs) are individuals perceived as credible and trustworthy, who disseminate and implement best evidence, for instance through informal one-to-one teaching or community outreach education visits. The use of OLs is a promising strategy to bridge evidence-practice gaps. This is an update of a Cochrane review published in 2011.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of local opinion leaders to improve healthcare professionals' compliance with evidence-based practice and patient outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases and two trials registers on 3 July 2018, together with searching reference lists of included studies and contacting experts in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered randomised studies comparing the effects of local opinion leaders, either alone or with a single or more intervention(s) to disseminate evidence-based practice, with no intervention, a single intervention, or the same single or more intervention(s). Eligible studies were those reporting objective measures of professional performance, for example, the percentage of patients being prescribed a specific drug or health outcomes, or both. We included all studies independently of the method used to identify OLs.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane procedures in this review. The main comparison was (i) between any intervention involving OLs (OLs alone, OLs with a single or more intervention(s)) versus any comparison intervention (no intervention, a single intervention, or the same single or more intervention(s)). We also made four secondary comparisons: ii) OLs alone versus no intervention, iii) OLs alone versus a single intervention, iv) OLs, with a single or more intervention(s) versus the same single or more intervention(s), and v) OLs with a single or more intervention(s) versus no intervention.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 24 studies, involving more than 337 hospitals, 350 primary care practices, 3005 healthcare professionals, and 29,167 patients (not all studies reported this information). A majority of studies were from North America, and all were conducted in high-income countries. Eighteen of these studies (21 comparisons, 71 compliance outcomes) contributed to the median adjusted risk difference (RD) for the main comparison. The median duration of follow-up was 12 months (range 2 to 30 months). The results suggested that the OL interventions probably improve healthcare professionals' compliance with evidence-based practice (10.8% absolute improvement in compliance, interquartile range (IQR): 3.5% to 14.6%; moderate-certainty evidence).Results for the secondary comparisons also suggested that OLs probably improve compliance with evidence-based practice (moderate-certainty evidence): i) OLs alone versus no intervention: RD (IQR): 9.15% (-0.3% to 15%); ii) OLs alone versus a single intervention: RD (range): 13.8% (12% to 15.5%); iii) OLs, with a single or more intervention(s) versus the same single or more intervention(s): RD (IQR): 7.1% (-1.4% to 19%); iv) OLs with a single or more intervention(s) versus no intervention: RD (IQR):10.25% (0.6% to 15.75%).It is uncertain if OLs alone, or in combination with other intervention(s), may lead to improved patient outcomes (3 studies; 5 dichotomous outcomes) since the certainty of evidence was very low. For two of the secondary comparisons, the IQR included the possibility of a small negative effect of the OL intervention. Possible explanations for the occasional negative effects are, for example, the possibility that the OLs may have prioritised some outcomes, at the expense of others, or that an unaccounted outcome difference at baseline, may have given a faulty impression of a negative effect of the intervention at follow-up. No study reported on costs or cost-effectiveness.We were unable to determine the comparative effectiveness of different approaches to identifying OLs, as most studies used the sociometric method. Nor could we determine which methods used by OLs to educate their peers were most effective, as the methods were poorly described in most studies. In addition, we could not determine whether OL teams were more effective than single OLs.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Local opinion leaders alone, or in combination with other interventions, can be effective in promoting evidence-based practice, but the effectiveness varies both within and between studies.The effect on patient outcomes is uncertain. The costs and the cost-effectiveness of the intervention(s) is unknown. These results are based on heterogeneous studies differing in types of intervention, setting, and outcomes. In most studies, the role and actions of the OL were not clearly described, and we cannot, therefore, comment on strategies to enhance their effectiveness. It is also not clear whether the methods used to identify OLs are important for their effectiveness, or whether the effect differs if education is delivered by single OLs or by multidisciplinary OL teams. Further research may help us to understand how these factors affect the effectiveness of OLs.
BACKGROUND: Tailored intervention strategies are frequently recommended among approaches to the implementation of improvement in health professional performance. Attempts to change the behaviour of health professionals may be impeded by a variety of different barriers, obstacles, or factors (which we collectively refer to as determinants of practice). Change may be more likely if implementation strategies are specifically chosen to address these determinants.
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether tailored intervention strategies are effective in improving professional practice and healthcare outcomes. We compared interventions tailored to address the identified determinants of practice with either no intervention or interventions not tailored to the determinants.
SEARCH METHODS: We conducted searches of The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, CINAHL, and the British Nursing Index to May 2014. We conducted a final search in December 2014 (in MEDLINE only) for more recently published trials. We conducted searches of the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) in March 2013. We also handsearched two journals.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Cluster-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions tailored to address prospectively identified determinants of practice, which reported objectively measured professional practice or healthcare outcomes, and where at least one group received an intervention designed to address prospectively identified determinants of practice.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed quality and extracted data. We undertook qualitative and quantitative analyses, the quantitative analysis including two elements: we carried out 1) meta-regression analyses to compare interventions tailored to address identified determinants with either no interventions or an intervention(s) not tailored to the determinants, and 2) heterogeneity analyses to investigate sources of differences in the effectiveness of interventions. These included the effects of: risk of bias, use of a theory when developing the intervention, whether adjustment was made for local factors, and number of domains addressed with the determinants identified.
MAIN RESULTS: We added nine studies to this review to bring the total number of included studies to 32 comparing an intervention tailored to address identified determinants of practice to no intervention or an intervention(s) not tailored to the determinants. The outcome was implementation of recommended practice, e.g. clinical practice guideline recommendations. Fifteen studies provided enough data to be included in the quantitative analysis. The pooled odds ratio was 1.56 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.27 to 1.93, P value < 0.001). The 17 studies not included in the meta-analysis had findings showing variable effectiveness consistent with the findings of the meta-regression.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Despite the increase in the number of new studies identified, our overall finding is similar to that of the previous review. Tailored implementation can be effective, but the effect is variable and tends to be small to moderate. The number of studies remains small and more research is needed, including trials comparing tailored interventions to no or other interventions, but also studies to develop and investigate the components of tailoring (identification of the most important determinants, selecting interventions to address the determinants). Currently available studies have used different methods to identify determinants of practice and different approaches to selecting interventions to address the determinants. It is not yet clear how best to tailor interventions and therefore not clear what the effect of an optimally tailored intervention would be.
BACKGROUND: In some low- and middle-income countries, separate vertical programmes deliver specific life-saving interventions but can fragment services. Strategies to integrate services aim to bring together inputs, organisation, and delivery of particular functions to increase efficiency and people's access. We examined the evidence on the effectiveness of integration strategies at the point of delivery (sometimes termed 'linkages'), including integrated delivery of tuberculosis (TB), HIV/AIDS and reproductive health programmes.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of strategies to integrate primary health care services on healthcare delivery and health status in low- and middle-income countries.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) 2010, Issue 3, part of the The Cochrane Library. www.thecochranelibrary.com, including the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group Specialised Register (searched 15 September  2010); MEDLINE, Ovid (1950 to August Week 5 2010) (searched 10 September  2010); EMBASE, Ovid (1980 to 2010 Week 35) (searched 10 September  2010); CINAHL, EBSCO (1980 to present) (searched 20 September 2010); Sociological Abstracts, CSA Illumina (1952 to current) (searched 10 September  2010); Social Services Abstracts, CSA Illumina (1979 to current) (searched 10 September  2010); POPLINE (1970 to current) (searched 10 September  2010); International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, Webspirs (1951 to current) (searched 01 July 2008); HealthStar (1975 to September 2005), Cab Health (1972 to 1999), and reference lists of articles. We also searched the World Health Organization (WHOLIS) library database, handsearched relevant WHO publications, and contacted experts in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials, controlled before and after studies, and interrupted time series analyses of integration strategies, including strengthening linkages, in primary health care services. Health services in high-income countries, private public partnerships, and hospital inpatient care were excluded as were programmes promoting the integrated management of childhood illnesses. The main outcomes were indicators of healthcare delivery, user views, and health status.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. The statistical results of individual studies are reported and summarised.
MAIN RESULTS: Five randomised trials and four controlled before and after studies were included. The interventions were complex.
Five studies added an additional component, or linked a new component, to an existing service, for example, adding family planning or HIV counselling and testing to routine services. The evidence from these studies indicated that adding on services probably increases service utilisation but probably does not improve health status outcomes, such as incident pregnancies.
Four studies compared integrated services to single, special services. Based on the included studies, fully integrating sexually transmitted infection (STI) and family planning, and maternal and child health services into routine care as opposed to delivering them as special 'vertical' services may decrease utilisation, client knowledge of and satisfaction with the services and may not result in any difference in health outcomes, such as child survival. Integrating HIV prevention and control at facility and community level improved the effectiveness of certain services (STI treatment in males) but resulted in no difference in health seeking behaviour, STI incidence, or HIV incidence in the population.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is some evidence that 'adding on' services (or linkages) may improve the utilisation and outputs of healthcare delivery. However, there is no evidence to date that a fuller form of integration improves healthcare delivery or health status. Available evidence suggests that full integration probably decreases the knowledge and utilisation of specific services and may not result in any improvements in health status. More rigorous studies of different strategies to promote integration over a wider range of services and settings are needed. These studies should include economic evaluation and the views of clients as clients' views will influence the uptake of integration strategies at the point of delivery and the effectiveness on community health of these strategies.
BACKGROUND: Educational outreach visits (EOVs) have been identified as an intervention that may improve the practice of healthcare professionals. This type of face-to-face visit has been referred to as university-based educational detailing, academic detailing, and educational visiting.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of EOVs on health professional practice or patient outcomes.
SEARCH STRATEGY: For this update, we searched the Cochrane EPOC register to March 2007. In the original review, we searched multiple bibliographic databases including MEDLINE and CINAHL.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials of EOVs that reported an objective measure of professional performance or healthcare outcomes. An EOV was defined as a personal visit by a trained person to healthcare professionals in their own settings.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality. We used bubble plots and box plots to visually inspect the data. We conducted both quantitative and qualitative analyses. We used meta-regression to examine potential sources of heterogeneity determined a priori. We hypothesised eight factors to explain variation across effect estimates. In our primary visual and statistical analyses, we included only studies with dichotomous outcomes, with baseline data and with low or moderate risk of bias, in which the intervention included an EOV and was compared to no intervention.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 69 studies involving more than 15,000 health professionals. Twenty-eight studies (34 comparisons) contributed to the calculation of the median and interquartile range for the main comparison. The median adjusted risk difference (RD) in compliance with desired practice was 5.6% (interquartile range 3.0% to 9.0%). The adjusted RDs were highly consistent for prescribing (median 4.8%, interquartile range 3.0% to 6.5% for 17 comparisons), but varied for other types of professional performance (median 6.0%, interquartile range 3.6% to 16.0% for 17 comparisons). Meta-regression was limited by the large number of potential explanatory factors (eight) with only 31 comparisons, and did not provide any compelling explanations for the observed variation in adjusted RDs. There were 18 comparisons with continuous outcomes, with a median adjusted relative improvement of 21% (interquartile range 11% to 41%). There were eight trials (12 comparisons) in which the intervention included an EOV and was compared to another type of intervention, usually audit and feedback. Interventions that included EOVs appeared to be slightly superior to audit and feedback. Only six studies evaluated different types of visits in head-to-head comparisons. When individual visits were compared to group visits (three trials), the results were mixed.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: EOVs alone or when combined with other interventions have effects on prescribing that are relatively consistent and small, but potentially important. Their effects on other types of professional performance vary from small to modest improvements, and it is not possible from this review to explain that variation.
A systematic review of the randomized trial literature examining the impact of financial incentives on provider preventive care delivery was conducted. English-language studies published between 1966 and 2002 that addressed primary or secondary preventive care or health promotion behaviors were included in the review. Six studies that met the inclusion criteria were identified, which generated eight different findings. The literature is sparse. Of the eight financial interventions reviewed, only one led to a significantly greater provision of preventive services. The lack of a significant relationship does not necessarily imply that financial incentives cannot motivate physicians to provide more preventive care. The rewards offered in these studies tend to be small. Therefore, the results suggest that small rewards will not motivate doctors to change their preventive care routines.
Conducted a systematic review of the literature to find out if there is evidence that problem based learning in continuing medical education is effective. This review of controlled evaluation studies found limited evidence that problem based learning in continuing medical education increased participants' knowledge and performance and patients' health. There was moderate evidence found that doctors are more satisfied with problem based learning. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)
OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of educational outreach visits for non-prescribing interventions in general practice through a systematic review of the literature METHODS: A systematic review of literature found through searching MeSH titles, text words and keywords previously applied to other continuing medical education systematic reviews. RESULTS: All of the studies reviewed reported that educational outreach visits had a positive effect, though the impact varied greatly between the studies. The impact was mainly on the process of care. The clinical relevance of these changes remains unclear. In most cases there was a lack of information about participants lost to follow-up and issues of concealment and contamination. CONCLUSIONS: Although all of the studies had some methodological weaknesses, educational outreach visits for non-prescribing interventions in general practice can improve process of care across different settings. The success of these interventions did not appear to improve with the complexity of intervention. Studies with longer follow-up periods are required.
BACKGROUND: The mass media frequently cover health related topics, are the leading source of information about important health issues, and are targeted by those who aim to influence the behaviour of health professionals and patients.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of mass media on the utilisation of health services.
SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group specialised register (1996 to 1999), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Eric, PsycLit (to 1999), and reference lists of articles. We hand searched the journals Communication Research (February 1987 to August 1996), European Journal of Communication (1986 to 1994), Journal of Communication (winter 1986 to summer 1996), Communication Theory (February 1991 to August 1996), Critical Studies in Mass Communication (March 1984 to March 1995) and Journalism Quarterly (1986 to summer 1996).
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials, controlled clinical trials, controlled before-and-after studies and interrupted time series analyses of mass media interventions. The participants were health care professionals, patients and the general public.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality.
MAIN RESULTS: Twenty studies were included. All used interrupted time series designs. Fifteen evaluated the impact of formal mass media campaigns, and five of media coverage of health-related issues. The overall methodological quality was variable. Six studies did not perform any statistical analysis, and nine used inappropriate statistical tests (ie not taking into account the effect of time trend). All of the studies apart from one concluded that mass media was effective. These positive findings were confirmed by our re-analysis in seven studies. The direction of effect was consistent across studies towards the expected change.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Despite the limited information about key aspects of mass media interventions and the poor quality of the available primary research there is evidence that these channels of communication may have an important role in influencing the use of health care interventions. Although the findings of this review may be affected by publication bias, those engaged in promoting better uptake of research information in clinical practice should consider mass media as one of the tools that may encourage the use of effective services and discourage those of unproven effectiveness.
Background: Educational meetings are used widely by health personnel to provide continuing medical education and to promote implementation of innovations or translate new knowledge to change practice within healthcare systems. Previous reviews have concluded that educational meetings can result in small changes in behaviour, but that effects vary considerably. Investigations into which characteristics of educational meetings might lead to greater impact have yielded varying results, and factors that might explain heterogeneity in effects remain unclear. This is the second update of this Cochrane Review. Objectives: • To assess the effects of educational meetings on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. • To investigate factors that might explain the heterogeneity of these effects. Search methods: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ERIC, Science Citation Index Expanded (ISI Web of Knowledge), and Social Sciences Citation Index (last search in November 2016). Selection criteria: We sought randomised trials examining the effects of educational meetings on professional practice and patient outcomes. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. One review author assessed the certainty of evidence (GRADE) and discussed with a second review author. We included studies in the primary analysis that reported baseline data and that we judged to be at low or unclear risk of bias. For each comparison of dichotomous outcomes, we measured treatment effect as risk difference adjusted for baseline compliance. We expressed adjusted risk difference values as percentages, and we noted that values greater than zero favour educational meetings. For continuous outcomes, we measured treatment effect as per cent change relative to the control group mean post test, adjusted for baseline performance; we expressed values as percentages and noted that values greater than zero favour educational meetings. We report means and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and, when appropriate, medians and interquartile ranges to facilitate comparisons to previous versions of this review. We analysed professional and patient outcomes separately and analysed 22 variables that were hypothesised a priori to explain heterogeneity. We explored heterogeneity by using univariate meta-regression and by inspecting violin plots. Main results: We included 215 studies involving more than 28,167 health professionals, including 142 new studies for this update. Educational meetings as the single intervention or the main component of a multi-faceted intervention compared with no intervention. • Probably slightly improve compliance with desired practice when compared with no intervention (65 comparisons, 7868 health professionals for dichotomous outcomes (adjusted risk difference 6.79%, 95% CI 6.62% to 6.97%; median 4.00%; interquartile range 0.29% to 13.00%); 28 comparisons, 2577 health professionals for continuous outcomes (adjusted relative percentage change 44.36%, 95% CI 41.98% to 46.75%; median 20.00%; interquartile range 6.00% to 65.00%)). • Probably slightly improve patient outcomes compared with no intervention (15 comparisons, 2530 health professionals for dichotomous outcomes (adjusted risk difference 3.30%, 95% CI 3.10% to 3.51%; median 0.10%; interquartile range 0.00% to 4.00%); 28 comparisons, 2294 health professionals for continuous outcomes (adjusted relative percentage change 8.35%, 95% CI 7.46% to 9.24%; median 2.00%; interquartile range -1.00% to 21.00%)). The certainty of evidence for this comparison is moderate. Educational meetings alone compared with other interventions. • May improve compliance with desired practice when compared with other interventions (6 studies, 1402 health professionals for dichotomous outcomes (adjusted risk difference 9.99%, 95% CI 9.47% to 10.52%; median 16.5%; interquartile range 0.80% to 16.50%); 2 studies, 72 health professionals for continuous outcomes (adjusted relative percentage change 12.00%, 95% CI 9.16% to 14.84%; median 12.00%; interquartile range 0.00% to 24.00%)). No studies met the inclusion criteria for patient outcome measurements. The certainty of evidence for this comparison is low. Interactive educational meetings compared with didactic (lecture-based) educational meetings. • We are uncertain of effects on compliance with desired practice (3 studies, 370 health professionals for dichotomous outcomes; 1 study, 192 health professionals for continuous outcomes) or on patient outcomes (1 study, 54 health professionals for continuous outcomes), as the certainty of evidence is very low. Any other comparison of different formats and durations of educational meetings. • We are uncertain of effects on compliance with desired practice (1 study, 19 health professionals for dichotomous outcomes; 1 study, 20 health professionals for continuous outcomes) or on patient outcomes (1 study, 113 health professionals for continuous outcomes), as the certainty of evidence is very low. Factors that might explain heterogeneity of effects. Meta-regression suggests that larger estimates of effect are associated with studies judged to be at high risk of bias, with studies that had unit of analysis errors, and with studies in which the unit of analysis was the provider rather than the patient. Improved compliance with desired practice may be associated with: shorter meetings; poor baseline compliance; better attendance; shorter follow-up; professionals provided with additional take-home material; explicit building of educational meetings on theory; targeting of low- versus high-complexity behaviours; targeting of outcomes with high versus low importance; goal of increasing rather than decreasing behaviour; teaching by opinion leaders; and use of didactic versus interactive teaching methods. Pre-specified exploratory analyses of behaviour change techniques suggest that improved compliance with desired practice may be associated with use of a greater number of behaviour change techniques; goal-setting; provision of feedback; provision for social comparison; and provision for social support. Compliance may be decreased by the use of follow-up prompts, skills training, and barrier identification techniques. Authors' conclusions: Compared with no intervention, educational meetings as the main component of an intervention probably slightly improve professional practice and, to a lesser extent, patient outcomes. Educational meetings may improve compliance with desired practice to a greater extent than other kinds of behaviour change interventions, such as text messages, fees, or office systems. Our findings suggest that multi-strategy approaches might positively influence the effects of educational meetings. Additional trials of educational meetings compared with no intervention are unlikely to change the review findings; therefore we will not further update this review comparison in the future. However, we note that randomised trials comparing different types of education are needed.
