Increasing the quantity and quality of searching for current best evidence to answer clinical questions: protocol and intervention design of the MacPLUS FS Factorial Randomized Controlled Trials

Gamification-as-Innovation: A Review

Gamification is a paradigm and process innovation premised on applying game mechanics to non-game settings with benefits of creative games designs and disruptive effects challenging conventional learning approaches. The purpose of this study is to review the literature on gamification-as-innovation. Applying the systematic review methodology, this study examines 96 articles and identifies developments in gamification-as-innovation in literature. Insights from the review suggests three main perspectives on gamification-as innovation in processes that reveal problems (investigation), stimulate novel behavior (induction) or transform processes (intervention) for improved effectiveness and engagement. The review also captures the state-of-the-art in gamification research underscoring advances in multi-level models, strategic initiatives and digital platforms. The review concludes by highlighting future research directions that advance gamification scholarship and practice.

Translating Clinical Questions by Physicians Into Searchable Queries: Analytical Survey Study

BACKGROUND

Staying up to date and answering clinical questions with current best evidence from health research is challenging. Evidence-based clinical texts, databases, and tools can help, but clinicians first need to translate their clinical questions into searchable queries. MacPLUS FS (McMaster Premium LiteratUre Service Federated Search) is an online search engine that allows clinicians to explore multiple resources simultaneously and retrieves one single output that includes the following: (1) evidence from summaries (eg, UpToDate and DynaMed), (2) preappraised research (eg, EvidenceAlerts), and (3) non-preappraised research (eg, PubMed), with and without validated bibliographic search filters. MacPLUS FS can also be used as a laboratory to explore clinical questions and evidence retrieval.

OBJECTIVE

Our primary objective was to examine how clinicians formulate their queries on a federated search engine, according to the population, intervention, comparison, and outcome (PICO) framework. Our secondary objective was to assess which resources were accessed by clinicians to answer their questions.

METHODS

We performed an analytical survey among 908 clinicians who used MacPLUS FS in the context of a randomized controlled trial on search retrieval. Recording account log-ins and usage, we extracted all 1085 queries performed during a 6-month period and classified each search term according to the PICO framework. We further categorized queries into background (eg, "What is porphyria?") and foreground questions (eg, "Does treatment A work better than B?"). We then analyzed the type of resources that clinicians accessed.

RESULTS

There were 695 structured queries, after exclusion of meaningless queries and iterations of similar searches. We classified 56.5% (393/695) of these queries as background questions and 43.5% (302/695) as foreground questions, the majority of which were related to questions about therapy (213/695, 30.6%), followed by diagnosis (48/695, 6.9%), etiology (24/695, 3.5%), and prognosis (17/695, 2.5%). This distribution did not significantly differ between postgraduate residents and medical faculty physicians (P=.51). Queries included a median of 3 search terms (IQR 2-4), most often related to the population and intervention or test, rarely related to the outcome, and never related to the comparator. About half of the resources accessed (314/610, 51.5%) were summaries, 24.4% (149/610) were preappraised research, and 24.1% were (147/610) non-preappraised research.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results, from a large sample of real-life queries, could guide the development of educational interventions to improve clinicians' retrieval skills, as well as inform the design of more useful evidence-based resources for clinical practice.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02038439; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02038439.

Online Platform as a Tool to Support Postgraduate Training in General Practice - A Case Report

Objective: Physicians in postgraduate training (PPT) in General Practice (GP) typically have very little interaction with their peers, as there is usually only one resident physician working in their respective department or GP office at a given time. Therefore, the online platform KOLEGEA, presented here, aims to support postgraduate training in general practice (PT in GP) in Germany through virtual interaction. Methodology: In 2012, the interdisciplinary research project KOLEGEA set up an online platform that any physicians in PT in GP can use for free after registration with their unitary continuous education number (Einheitliche Fortbildungsnummer, EFN). It offers problem-based learning and allows to discuss self-published anonymized patient cases with the community that can be classified and discussed with experienced mentors (specialists in general practice - GPs) in small virtual groups. Results: An anonymous online survey carried out as part of the 2014 project evaluation showed a good acceptance of the platform, even though shortage of time was mentioned as a limiting factor for its use. Data analysis showed that KOLEGEA was used by PPT in GP in all federal states. Patterns of passive use were predominant (90%). This report also describes the further development of the platform (in 2015 and 2016) that integrates an activity monitor as part of a gamification concept. Conclusions: Due to a low response rate of the 2014 online survey and the preliminary evaluations of usage patterns we could identify only initial trends regarding the role of KOLEGEA in supporting PPT. The platform was perceived as a helpful supplement to better structure PT in GP.

Development of a Search Strategy for an Evidence Based Retrieval Service

Background

Physicians are often encouraged to locate answers for their clinical queries via an evidence-based literature search approach. The methods used are often not clearly specified. Inappropriate search strategies, time constraint and contradictory information complicate evidence retrieval.

Aims

Our study aimed to develop a search strategy to answer clinical queries among physicians in a primary care setting

Methods

Six clinical questions of different medical conditions seen in primary care were formulated. A series of experimental searches to answer each question was conducted on 3 commonly advocated medical databases. We compared search results from a PICO (patients, intervention, comparison, outcome) framework for questions using different combinations of PICO elements. We also compared outcomes from doing searches using text words, Medical Subject Headings (MeSH), or a combination of both. All searches were documented using screenshots and saved search strategies.

Results

Answers to all 6 questions using the PICO framework were found. A higher number of systematic reviews were obtained using a 2 PICO element search compared to a 4 element search. A more optimal choice of search is a combination of both text words and MeSH terms. Despite searching using the Systematic Review filter, many non-systematic reviews or narrative reviews were found in PubMed. There was poor overlap between outcomes of searches using different databases. The duration of search and screening for the 6 questions ranged from 1 to 4 hours.

Conclusion

This strategy has been shown to be feasible and can provide evidence to doctors’ clinical questions. It has the potential to be incorporated into an interventional study to determine the impact of an online evidence retrieval system.

Use of Tablet Computers to Promote Physical Therapy Students' Engagement in Knowledge Translation During Clinical Experiences

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text.

Background and Purpose:

Physical therapists strive to integrate research into daily practice. The tablet computer is a potentially transformational tool for accessing information within the clinical practice environment. The purpose of this study was to measure and describe patterns of tablet computer use among physical therapy students during clinical rotation experiences.

Methods:

Doctor of physical therapy students (n = 13 users) tracked their use of tablet computers (iPad), loaded with commercially available apps, during 16 clinical experiences (6-16 weeks in duration).

Results:

The tablets were used on 70% of 691 clinic days, averaging 1.3 uses per day. Information seeking represented 48% of uses; 33% of those were foreground searches for research articles and syntheses and 66% were for background medical information. Other common uses included patient education (19%), medical record documentation (13%), and professional communication (9%). The most frequently used app was Safari, the preloaded web browser (representing 281 [36.5%] incidents of use). Users accessed 56 total apps to support clinical practice.

Discussion and Conclusions:

Physical therapy students successfully integrated use of a tablet computer into their clinical experiences including regular activities of information seeking. Our findings suggest that the tablet computer represents a potentially transformational tool for promoting knowledge translation in the clinical practice environment.

Video Abstract available for more insights from the authors (see Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/JNPT/A127).

What's the Point?: A Review of Reward Systems Implemented in Gamification Interventions

Rewards are commonly used in interventions to change behavior, but they can inhibit development of intrinsic motivation, which is associated with long-term behavior maintenance. Gamification is a novel intervention strategy that may target intrinsic motivation through fun and enjoyment. Before the effects of gamified interventions on motivation can be determined, there must be an understanding of how gamified interventions operationalize rewards, such as point systems. The purpose of this review is to determine the prevalence of different reward types, specifically point systems, within gamified interventions. Electronic databases were searched for relevant articles. Data sources included Medline OVID, Medline PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane Central, and PsycINFO. Out of the 21 articles retrieved, 18 studies described a reward system and were included in this review. Gamified interventions were designed to target a myriad of clinical outcomes across diverse populations. Rewards included points (n = 14), achievements/badges/medals (n = 7), tangible rewards (n = 7), currency (n = 4), other unspecified rewards (n = 3), likes (n = 2), animated feedback (n = 1), and kudos (n = 1). Rewards, and points in particular, appear to be a foundational component of gamified interventions. Despite their prevalence, authors seldom described the use of noncontingent rewards or how the rewards interacted with other game features. The reward systems relying on tangible rewards and currency may have been limited by inhibited intrinsic motivation. As gamification proliferates, future research should explicitly describe how rewards were operationalized in the intervention and evaluate the effects of gamified rewards on motivation across populations and research outcomes.