To evaluate the READER model for critical reading by comparing it with a free appraisal, and to explore what factors influence different components of the models Design : A randomised controlled trial in which two groups of general practitioners assessed three papers from the general practice section of the BMJ.
243 general practitioners.
Scores given using the READER model (Relevance, Education, Applicability, Discrimination, overall Evaluation) and scores given using a free appraisal for scientific quality and an overall total.
The hierarchical order for the three papers was different for the two groups, according to the total scores.
Participants using the READER method (intervention group) gave a significantly lower total score (P<=0.01) and a lower score for the scientific quality (P<=0.00101) for all three papers.
Overall more than one in five (22%), and more men than women, read more than 5 articles a month (P<=0.05).
Those who were trainers tended to read more articles (P<=0.05), and no trainers admitted to reading none.
Overall, 58% (135/234) (68% (76/112) of the intervention group) believed that taking part in the exercise would encourage them to be more critical of published articles in the future (P<=0.01).
Participants using the READER model gave a consistently lower overall score and applied a more appropriate appraisal to the methodology of the studies. (...)
Mots-clés Pascal : Médecin généraliste, Randomisation, Facteur qualité, Lecteur, Valeur critique, Méthodologie, Evaluation, Homme, Lecture
Mots-clés Pascal anglais : General practitioner, Randomization, Q factor, Reader, Critical value, Methodology, Evaluation, Human, Reading
Notice produite par :
Inist-CNRS - Institut de l'Information Scientifique et Technique
Cote : 98-0219029
Code Inist : 002B30A09. Création : 11/09/1998.