Evidence-Based Medicine Culture, Curriculum, and Program Outcomes: A CERA Study.

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Family Medicine Pub Date : 2024-08-23 DOI:10.22454/FamMed.2024.895739
Kate Rowland, John W Epling, Rick Guthmann, Joel J Heidelbaugh, Martha Johnson, Georgia Luckey, Robert Martin
{"title":"Evidence-Based Medicine Culture, Curriculum, and Program Outcomes: A CERA Study.","authors":"Kate Rowland, John W Epling, Rick Guthmann, Joel J Heidelbaugh, Martha Johnson, Georgia Luckey, Robert Martin","doi":"10.22454/FamMed.2024.895739","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Limited faculty development is a barrier to advancing evidence-based medicine (EBM) education. This study sought to describe program director perception of EBM culture in family medicine residency training and to assess the association among structured faculty roles, EBM curricula, and specific resident outcomes including publications in EBM.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Members of the Society of Teachers of Family Medicine EBM collaborative drafted survey questions based on a literature review. The questions were electronically distributed in May 2023 to all US family medicine residency program directors who had not previously opted out by the Council of Academic Family Medicine Educational Research Alliance within its study of family medicine program directors. We analyzed results using descriptive and comparative statistics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The overall response rate was 44.7% (309/691). We found that 260/281 (92%) of program directors reported an EBM curriculum of some kind, and 253/281 (90%) of program directors agreed/strongly agreed that EBM was accepted by residents. Of the respondents, 72/281 (25.6%) reported that no specific faculty member was responsible for their EBM curriculum. Most program directors reported that less than 50% of residents will leave their programs with the ability to detect an error in original research (23.8%; 67/281), detect an important omission in an UpToDate article (16%; 45/281), or author a narrative review for American Family Physician (10%; 28/281).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Program directors reported strong acceptance of EBM among residents and a high prevalence of a formal curriculum. However, many lacked a specific faculty lead, and few reported that residents had strong EBM skills. This study identified gaps in residency training to support future EBM-skilled family physicians as well as concerns about pathways for the development of future EBM faculty.</p>","PeriodicalId":50456,"journal":{"name":"Family Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Family Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22454/FamMed.2024.895739","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Limited faculty development is a barrier to advancing evidence-based medicine (EBM) education. This study sought to describe program director perception of EBM culture in family medicine residency training and to assess the association among structured faculty roles, EBM curricula, and specific resident outcomes including publications in EBM.

Methods: Members of the Society of Teachers of Family Medicine EBM collaborative drafted survey questions based on a literature review. The questions were electronically distributed in May 2023 to all US family medicine residency program directors who had not previously opted out by the Council of Academic Family Medicine Educational Research Alliance within its study of family medicine program directors. We analyzed results using descriptive and comparative statistics.

Results: The overall response rate was 44.7% (309/691). We found that 260/281 (92%) of program directors reported an EBM curriculum of some kind, and 253/281 (90%) of program directors agreed/strongly agreed that EBM was accepted by residents. Of the respondents, 72/281 (25.6%) reported that no specific faculty member was responsible for their EBM curriculum. Most program directors reported that less than 50% of residents will leave their programs with the ability to detect an error in original research (23.8%; 67/281), detect an important omission in an UpToDate article (16%; 45/281), or author a narrative review for American Family Physician (10%; 28/281).

Conclusions: Program directors reported strong acceptance of EBM among residents and a high prevalence of a formal curriculum. However, many lacked a specific faculty lead, and few reported that residents had strong EBM skills. This study identified gaps in residency training to support future EBM-skilled family physicians as well as concerns about pathways for the development of future EBM faculty.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
循证医学文化、课程和项目成果:CERA 研究。
背景:有限的师资发展是推进循证医学(EBM)教育的障碍。本研究试图描述项目主任对全科住院医师培训中循证医学文化的看法,并评估结构化教师角色、循证医学课程和特定住院医师成果(包括在循证医学领域发表的论文)之间的关联:全科医学教师学会 EBM 合作组织的成员根据文献综述起草了调查问题。这些问题于 2023 年 5 月以电子方式分发给了美国全科医学教育研究联盟理事会(Council of Academic Family Medicine Educational Research Alliance)在其全科医学项目主任研究中未选择退出的所有全科医学住院医师项目主任。我们使用描述性和比较性统计对结果进行了分析:总回复率为 44.7%(309/691)。我们发现,260/281(92%)的项目主任报告了某种 EBM 课程,253/281(90%)的项目主任同意/非常同意住院医生接受 EBM。在受访者中,72/281(25.6%)人表示没有特定的教师负责 EBM 课程。大多数项目主任表示,不到 50%的住院医师在离开他们的项目时有能力发现原创研究中的错误(23.8%;67/281),发现 UpToDate 文章中的重要疏漏(16%;45/281),或为《美国家庭医生》撰写一篇叙述性综述(10%;28/281):项目主任表示,住院医师对 EBM 的接受度很高,正式课程的普及率也很高。然而,许多项目缺乏具体的教师领导,很少有项目主任表示住院医师具备很强的 EBM 技能。这项研究发现了住院医师培训在支持未来具备 EBM 技能的家庭医生方面存在的差距,以及对未来 EBM 师资发展途径的担忧。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Family Medicine
Family Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
21.10%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Family Medicine, the official journal of the Society of Teachers of Family Medicine, publishes original research, systematic reviews, narrative essays, and policy analyses relevant to the discipline of family medicine, particularly focusing on primary care medical education, health workforce policy, and health services research. Journal content is not limited to educational research from family medicine educators; and we welcome innovative, high-quality contributions from authors in a variety of specialties and academic fields.
期刊最新文献
Authors' Response to "The Growing Divide Between Teaching Empathy and Being Empathetic". The Growing Divide Between Teaching Empathy and Being Empathetic. An Exploratory Study of Published Case Reports Using a Systematic Typology. Supporting International Medical Graduate Workforce Integration in the 2024 US Election. Three Types of Uncertainty: A Qualitative Study of Family Medicine Residents.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1