4.2 Article

Effects on Knowledge and Attitudes of Using Stages of Change to Train General Practitioners on Management of Depression: A Randomized Controlled Study

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/070674370905401006

关键词

continuing professional development; continuing medical education; depression; Prochaska; general practitioner; randomized controlled trial; knowledge; assessment

资金

  1. TUMS [140/44109]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To assess the impact on knowledge and attitudes of a tailored educational intervention on depression using a modified version of the Prochaska stages of change model, compared with standard continuing medical education, for general practitioners (GPs) in primary care in Iran. Method: Using a randomized controlled trial, a total of 192 GPs were evenly randomized to intervention or control arm. The topic for the educational intervention was depressive disorders. The participants were divided in to small and large groups, depending on their initial stage of change. The GPs' knowledge and skills regarding management of depressive disorders were assessed through a questionnaire with 7 multiple choice questions, 11 Likert statements, 3 case vignettes, and 1 essay question. Attitudes toward management of depressive disorders were also assessed. Both questionnaires were validated. Results: There was a significant improvement in knowledge mean scores regarding multiple choice and Likert questions (intervention effect 6%; P = 0.002), as well as for the case vignettes and essay question (intervention effect 12%; P = 0.011) in the intervention arm, in comparison with the control ann. There were significant changes in mean attitude scores in both study arms, but no difference between them. Conclusions: A theoretical model of medical learning and behavioural change can be used to devise educational formats that suit different stages of learning. Such tailored educational formats can improve GPs' knowledge and skills regarding management of depressive disorders.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据