Comparison of Two Learning Modalities on Continuing Medical Education Consumption and Knowledge Acquisition: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.

Matthew D McEvoy, Leslie C Fowler, Amy Robertson, Brian J Gelfand, Geoffrey M Fleming, Bonnie Miller, Donald Moore
{"title":"Comparison of Two Learning Modalities on Continuing Medical Education Consumption and Knowledge Acquisition: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.","authors":"Matthew D McEvoy,&nbsp;Leslie C Fowler,&nbsp;Amy Robertson,&nbsp;Brian J Gelfand,&nbsp;Geoffrey M Fleming,&nbsp;Bonnie Miller,&nbsp;Donald Moore","doi":"10.46374/volxxiii_issue3_mcevoy","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Research has demonstrated that active learning, spaced education, and retrieval-based practice can improve knowledge acquisition, knowledge retention, and clinical practice. Furthermore, learners prefer active learning modalities that use the testing effect and spaced education as compared to passive, lecture-based education. However, most research has been performed with students and residents rather than practicing physicians. To date, most continuing medical education (CME) opportunities use passive learning models, such as face-to-face meetings with lecture-style didactic sessions. The aim of this study was to investigate learner engagement, as measured by the number of CME credits earned, via two different learning modalities.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Diplomates of the American Board of Anesthesiology or candidates for certification through the board (referred to colloquially and for the remainder of this article as board certified or board eligible) were provided an opportunity to enroll in the study. Participants were recruited via email. Once enrolled, they were randomized into 1 of 2 groups: web-app-based CME (Webapp CME) or an online interface that replicated online CME (Online CME). The intervention period lasted 6 weeks and participants were provided educational content using one of the two approaches. As an incentive for participation, CME credits could be earned (without cost) during the intervention period and for completion of the postintervention quiz. The same number of CME credits was available to each group.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifty-four participants enrolled and completed the study. The mean number of CME credits earned was greater in the Webapp group compared to the Online group (12.3 ± 1.4 h versus 4.5 ± 2.3 h, <i>P</i> < .001). Concerning knowledge acquisition, the difference in postintervention quiz scores was not statistically significant (Webapp 70% ± 7% versus Online 60% ± 11%, <i>P</i> = .11). However, only 29% of the Online group completed the postintervention quiz, versus 77% of the Webapp group (<i>P</i> < .001), possibly showing a greater rate of learner engagement in the Webapp group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In this prospective, randomized controlled pilot study, we demonstrated that daily spaced education delivered to learners through a smartphone web app resulted in greater learner engagement than an online modality. Further research with larger trials is needed to confirm our findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":75067,"journal":{"name":"The journal of education in perioperative medicine : JEPM","volume":"23 3","pages":"E668"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8491639/pdf/i2333-0406-23-3-mcevoy.pdf","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The journal of education in perioperative medicine : JEPM","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.46374/volxxiii_issue3_mcevoy","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Background: Research has demonstrated that active learning, spaced education, and retrieval-based practice can improve knowledge acquisition, knowledge retention, and clinical practice. Furthermore, learners prefer active learning modalities that use the testing effect and spaced education as compared to passive, lecture-based education. However, most research has been performed with students and residents rather than practicing physicians. To date, most continuing medical education (CME) opportunities use passive learning models, such as face-to-face meetings with lecture-style didactic sessions. The aim of this study was to investigate learner engagement, as measured by the number of CME credits earned, via two different learning modalities.

Methods: Diplomates of the American Board of Anesthesiology or candidates for certification through the board (referred to colloquially and for the remainder of this article as board certified or board eligible) were provided an opportunity to enroll in the study. Participants were recruited via email. Once enrolled, they were randomized into 1 of 2 groups: web-app-based CME (Webapp CME) or an online interface that replicated online CME (Online CME). The intervention period lasted 6 weeks and participants were provided educational content using one of the two approaches. As an incentive for participation, CME credits could be earned (without cost) during the intervention period and for completion of the postintervention quiz. The same number of CME credits was available to each group.

Results: Fifty-four participants enrolled and completed the study. The mean number of CME credits earned was greater in the Webapp group compared to the Online group (12.3 ± 1.4 h versus 4.5 ± 2.3 h, P < .001). Concerning knowledge acquisition, the difference in postintervention quiz scores was not statistically significant (Webapp 70% ± 7% versus Online 60% ± 11%, P = .11). However, only 29% of the Online group completed the postintervention quiz, versus 77% of the Webapp group (P < .001), possibly showing a greater rate of learner engagement in the Webapp group.

Conclusion: In this prospective, randomized controlled pilot study, we demonstrated that daily spaced education delivered to learners through a smartphone web app resulted in greater learner engagement than an online modality. Further research with larger trials is needed to confirm our findings.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

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
继续医学教育消费与知识获取两种学习方式的比较:一项随机对照试验。
背景:研究表明,主动学习、间隔教育和基于检索的实践可以改善知识获取、知识保留和临床实践。此外,与被动的、以讲座为基础的教育相比,学习者更喜欢使用测试效果和间隔教育的主动学习方式。然而,大多数研究是在学生和住院医生中进行的,而不是在执业医生中进行的。迄今为止,大多数继续医学教育(CME)的机会都采用被动学习模式,如面对面的讲座式教学会议。本研究的目的是通过两种不同的学习方式,通过获得CME学分的数量来调查学习者的参与度。方法:美国麻醉学委员会的文凭或通过委员会认证的候选人(在本文的其余部分被通俗地称为委员会认证或委员会合格)被提供参加研究的机会。参与者是通过电子邮件招募的。注册后,他们被随机分为两组:基于web应用程序的CME (Webapp CME)或复制在线CME的在线界面(online CME)。干预期为6周,参与者使用两种方法中的一种提供教育内容。作为参与的一种激励,在干预期间和完成干预后测验时可以获得CME学分(免费)。每个组可获得相同数量的CME学分。结果:54名参与者参加并完成了研究。Webapp组获得CME学分的平均数量比Online组要多(12.3±1.4 h比4.5±2.3 h, P < 0.001)。在知识获取方面,干预后测验得分差异无统计学意义(Webapp为70%±7%,Online为60%±11%,P = 0.11)。然而,只有29%的在线组完成了干预后测验,而Webapp组的这一比例为77% (P < 0.001),这可能表明Webapp组的学习者参与度更高。结论:在这项前瞻性、随机对照的试点研究中,我们证明了通过智能手机网络应用程序向学习者提供的每日间隔教育比在线模式产生了更高的学习者参与度。需要进一步的研究和更大规模的试验来证实我们的发现。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Geographical Distribution of Newly Accredited Anesthesiology Training Programs in Relation to Health Professional Shortage Areas and Medically Underserved Populations. Identification of Candidate Characteristics that Predicted a Successful Anesthesiology Residency Program Match in 2024: An Anonymous, Prospective Survey. The Role of Ombuds in Graduate Medical Education: Fostering Wellness and Psychological Safety. Assessment and Recommendations for the Society of Obstetric Anesthesia and Perinatology Fellowship Websites. Development of a Prioritized Anesthesiology Residency Critical Care Content Outline.
×
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