Outcomes for degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) patients are limited by delayed and missed diagnoses, driven in part by poor professional awareness. Despite DCM being the most common cause of adult spinal cord injury, it remains under-recognised and undertaught in clinical education. Lessons from other common pathology like stroke and acute myocardial infarction highlight the potential of education to improve early diagnosis. This study will develop a professional education strategy to improve early DCM diagnosis. It will define key audiences and identify an effective delivery method, laying the groundwork for a sustained, targeted intervention.

The study aims to define who needs to know about DCM, what they need to know and how they can learn it. This will be carried out in three phases: phase 1—who and what: to establish the target population and to define core competencies for the educational intervention; phase 2—how: to create and review the educational intervention; phase 3—evaluation: to test whether the framework is an improvement to existing strategies.

Ethical approval is in place from the University of Cambridge (HBREC.2024.24). Results from the study will be disseminated through scientific publication, conference presentation, blog posts and podcasts.

CRD42023461838

To assess the comparative effectiveness of educational interventions in neurological disease for healthcare workers and students.

Systematic review.

Medline, Embase and Cochrane through to 1 June 2025.

Studies evaluating neurological disease educational interventions with a comparator group (observational cohort/randomised controlled trial (RCT)) were included.

A 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}

A 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).

This 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.