Journal Article

Comparative effectiveness of educational interventions in neurological disease for healthcare workers and students: a systematic review

Davies, Benjamin M, Toumbas, Georgios, Deakin, Naomi, Tetreault, Lindsay, Gillespie, Conor S, Bateman, Antony, Cook, William H, Chauhan, Rohil V, Jiang, Zhilin, Roman, Elena, Rafati Fard, Amir, Veremu, Munashe, Stacpoole, Sybil, Baig, Shehla, Zipser, Carl

2025

Overview

ObjectivesTo assess the comparative effectiveness of educational interventions in neurological disease for healthcare workers and students.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesMedline, Embase and Cochrane through to 1 June 2025.Eligibility criteriaStudies evaluating neurological disease educational interventions with a comparator group (observational cohort/randomised controlled trial (RCT)) were included.Data extraction and synthesisA Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-compliant systematic review was conducted (PROSPERO: CRD42023461838). Knowledge acquisition and educational methodologies were collected from each study. Study outcomes were classified using the Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick four-level model (learner reaction, knowledge acquisition, behavioural change, clinical outcome).1 Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for non-randomised studies and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for RCTs.2 3 ResultsA total of 67 studies involving 4728 participants were included. Of these, 36 were RCTs, and 31 were observational studies. Virtual interventions were the most common (67.2%, n=45 studies), primarily targeting either medical students (46.3%, n=31 studies) or specialists (40.3%, n=27 studies). Overall, 70.1% (n=47) of studies demonstrated outcomes in favour of the intervention. However, few studies used K&K level 3/4 outcomes, with two studies evaluating behaviour change (level 3) and three assessing clinical outcomes (level 4 combined with other levels). No study exclusively assessed level 4 outcomes. Meta-analysis of 22 RCTs with calculable standardised mean differences (SMDs) (n=1748) showed a significant benefit of interventions (SMD 0.75, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.27, p=0.0056).ConclusionsThis review highlights a growing body of research particularly focusing on virtual techniques, specialist audiences and treatment-oriented content. Few studies assessed changes in practice or patient care. Non-specialists remain underrepresented. Future studies should prioritise assessing the clinical impact of educational interventions within non-specialist audiences.

• Publisher: British Medical Journal Publishing Group,BMJ Publishing Group LTD,BMJ Publishing Group
• Subject: Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis / Audiences / Clinical outcomes / Comparative Effectiveness Research / Disease / Education / Emergency medical care / Health Education / Health Personnel - education / Humans / Intervention / Knowledge / MEDICAL EDUCATION & TRAINING / Medical personnel / Nervous system / Nervous System Diseases - therapy / Neurology / Neurosurgery / Pathology / Patients / Professionals / Simulation / Students / Systematic review