Dataset Information

Improving participant feedback to continuing medical education presenters in internal medicine: a mixed-methods study.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Feedback is essential for improving the skills of continuing medical education (CME) presenters. However, there has been little research on improving the quality of feedback to CME presenters. OBJECTIVES:To validate an instrument for generating balanced and behavior-specific feedback from a national cross-section of participants to presenters at a large internal medicine CME course. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:A prospective, randomized validation study with qualitative data analysis that included all 317 participants at a Mayo Clinic internal medicine CME course in 2009. MEASUREMENTS:An 8-item (5-point Likert scales) CME faculty assessment enhanced study form (ESF) was designed based on literature and expert review. Course participants were randomized to a standard form, a generic study form (GSF), or the ESF. The dimensionality of instrument scores was determined using factor analysis to account for clustered data. Internal consistency and interrater reliabilities were calculated. Associations between overall feedback scores and presenter and presentation variables were identified using generalized estimating equations to account for multiple observations within talk and speaker combinations. Two raters reached consensus on qualitative themes and independently analyzed narrative entries for evidence of balanced and behavior-specific comments. RESULTS:Factor analysis of 5,241 evaluations revealed a uni-dimensional model for measuring CME presenter feedback. Overall internal consistency (Cronbach alpha?=?0.94) and internal consistency reliability (ICC range 0.88-0.95) were excellent. Feedback scores were associated with presenters' academic ranks (mean score): Instructor (4.12), Assistant Professor (4.38), Associate Professor (4.56), Professor (4.70) (p?=?0.046). Qualitative analysis revealed that the ESF generated the highest numbers of balanced comments (GSF?=?11, ESF?=?26; p?=?0.01) and behavior-specific comments (GSF?=?64, ESF?=?104; p?=?0.001). CONCLUSIONS:We describe a practical and validated method for generating balanced and behavior-specific feedback for CME presenters in internal medicine. Our simple method for prompting course participants to give balanced and behavior-specific comments may ultimately provide CME presenters with feedback for improving their presentations.

SUBMITTER: Wittich CM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3304027 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Improving participant feedback to continuing medical education presenters in internal medicine: a mixed-methods study.

Wittich Christopher M CM Mauck Karen F KF Mandrekar Jayawant N JN Gluth Karol A KA West Colin P CP Litin Scott C SC Beckman Thomas J TJ

Journal of general internal medicine 20110927 4

<h4>Background</h4>Feedback is essential for improving the skills of continuing medical education (CME) presenters. However, there has been little research on improving the quality of feedback to CME presenters.<h4>Objectives</h4>To validate an instrument for generating balanced and behavior-specific feedback from a national cross-section of participants to presenters at a large internal medicine CME course.<h4>Design, setting, and participants</h4>A prospective, randomized validation study with ...[more]

PMID: 21948229

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The Mobile Continuing Medical Education Project (mCME V.2.0) was a randomized controlled trial designed to test the efficacy of a text messaging (short message service [SMS])-based distance learning program in Vietnam that included daily quiz questions, links to readings and online courses, and performance feedback. The trial resulted in significant increases in self-study behaviors and higher examination scores for intervention versus control participants. OBJECTIVE:The objective of this mixed-methods study was to conduct qualitative and quantitative investigations to understand participants' views of the intervention. We also developed an explanatory framework for future trial replication. METHODS:At the endline examination, all intervention participants completed a survey on their perspectives of mCME and self-study behaviors. We convened focus group discussions to assess their experiences with the intervention and attitudes toward continuing medical education. RESULTS:A total of 48 HIV specialists in the intervention group completed the endline survey, and 30 participated in the focus group discussions. Survey and focus group data suggested that most clinicians liked the daily quizzes, citing them as convenient mechanisms to convey information in a relevant manner. A total of 43 of the 48 (90%) participants reported that the daily quizzes provided motivation to study for continuing medical education purposes. Additionally, 83% (40/48) of intervention participants expressed that they were better prepared to care for patients with HIV in their communities, compared with 67% (32/48) at baseline. Participation in the online coursework component was low (only 32/48, 67% of intervention participants ever accessed the courses), but most of those who did participate thought the lectures were engaging (26/32, 81%) and relevant (29/32, 91%). Focus group discussions revealed that various factors influenced the clinicians' decision to engage in higher learning, or "lateral learning," including the participant's availability to study, professional relevance of the topic area, and feedback. These variables serve as modifying factors that fit within an adapted version of the health belief model, which can explain behavior change in this context. CONCLUSIONS:Qualitative and quantitative endline data suggested that mCME V.2.0 was highly acceptable. Participant behaviors during the trial fit within the health belief model and can explain the intervention's impact on improving self-study behaviors. The mCME platform is an evidence-based approach with the potential for adoption at a national scale as a method for promoting continuing medical education. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02381743; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02381743.

Project description:ImportanceNew dissemination methods are needed to engage physicians in evidence-based continuing medical education (CME).ObjectiveTo examine the effectiveness of social media in engaging physicians in non-industry-sponsored CME.DesignWe tested the effect of different media platforms (e-mail, Facebook, paid Facebook and Twitter), CME topics, and different "hooks" (e.g., Q&A, clinical pearl and best evidence) on driving clicks to a landing site featuring non-industry sponsored CME. We modelled the effects of social media platform, CME topic, and hook using negative binomial regression on clicks to a single landing site. We used clicks to landing site adjusted for exposure and message number to calculate rate ratios. To understand how physicians interact with CME content on social media, we also conducted interviews with 10 physicians.SettingThe National Physicians Alliance (NPA) membership.ParticipantsNPA e-mail recipients, Facebook followers and friends, and Twitter followers.Main outcomes and measuresClicks to the NPA's CME landing site.ResultsOn average, 4,544 recipients received each message. Messages generated a total of 592 clicks to the landing site, for a rate of 5.4 clicks per 1000 recipients exposed. There were 5.4 clicks from e-mail, 11.9 clicks from Facebook, 5.5 clicks from paid Facebook, and 6.9 clicks from Twitter to the landing site for 1000 physicians exposed to each of 4 selected CME modules. A Facebook post generated 2.3x as many clicks to the landing site as did an e-mail after controlling for participant exposure, hook type and CME topic (p<0.001). Twitter posts (p = 0.13) and paid Facebook posts (p = 0.06) were not statistically different from e-mail in generating clicks to the landing site. Use of different hooks to engage physicians had no impact on clicks to the landing site. Interviews with physicians suggested that social media might not be a preferred vehicle for disseminating CME.ConclusionsSocial media has a modest impact on driving traffic to evidence-based CME options. Facebook had a superior effect on driving physician web traffic to evidence-based CME compared to other social media platforms and email.

Dataset Information

Improving participant feedback to continuing medical education presenters in internal medicine: a mixed-methods study.

Publications

Improving participant feedback to continuing medical education presenters in internal medicine: a mixed-methods study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets