FOAM 作者身份:谁在教我们的学生?

IF 1.7 Q2 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES AEM Education and Training Pub Date : 2024-05-27 DOI:10.1002/aet2.10995
Andrew Grock MD, Tiffany Fan MD, Max Berger MD, Jeffrey Riddell MD
{"title":"FOAM 作者身份:谁在教我们的学生?","authors":"Andrew Grock MD,&nbsp;Tiffany Fan MD,&nbsp;Max Berger MD,&nbsp;Jeffrey Riddell MD","doi":"10.1002/aet2.10995","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Free open-access medical education (FOAM) is extremely popular among learners and educators despite lacking the traditional peer review process. Despite the potential for inaccurate, low-quality, or biased content, little has been published describing FOAM authors.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We performed a cross-sectional analysis of 12 months of content from the top 25 blogs in the 2020 Social Media Index from August 2020–2021. We recorded the number of posts per site and descriptive characteristics of authors, including gender affiliation, conflicts of interest (COI) statements, and type of practice (academic, community, or hybrid).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>We identified 2141 posts by 1001 authors. More than half were produced by six websites: EM Docs (266), Life in the Fast Lane (232), EMCrit (188), ALiEM (185), Don't Forget the Bubbles (181), and Rebel EM (174). Most content (1680 posts, 78.5%) lacked a COI statement. Authors were mostly academic (89%), mostly held MD degrees (67.4%), and were mostly men (59.7%). Geographically, most FOAM authors reside in the United States (59.5%), Canada (22.42%), or the United Kingdom (9.4%).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Of all the posts in the top 25 sites in 2020, more than half came from six sites, and authors were largely North American men in academics with MD degrees. Learners, content creators, and educators should consider the ways in which a more diverse authorship pool might bring value to the FOAM educational experience.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":37032,"journal":{"name":"AEM Education and Training","volume":"8 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/aet2.10995","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"FOAM authorship: Who's teaching our learners?\",\"authors\":\"Andrew Grock MD,&nbsp;Tiffany Fan MD,&nbsp;Max Berger MD,&nbsp;Jeffrey Riddell MD\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/aet2.10995\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>Free open-access medical education (FOAM) is extremely popular among learners and educators despite lacking the traditional peer review process. Despite the potential for inaccurate, low-quality, or biased content, little has been published describing FOAM authors.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>We performed a cross-sectional analysis of 12 months of content from the top 25 blogs in the 2020 Social Media Index from August 2020–2021. We recorded the number of posts per site and descriptive characteristics of authors, including gender affiliation, conflicts of interest (COI) statements, and type of practice (academic, community, or hybrid).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>We identified 2141 posts by 1001 authors. More than half were produced by six websites: EM Docs (266), Life in the Fast Lane (232), EMCrit (188), ALiEM (185), Don't Forget the Bubbles (181), and Rebel EM (174). Most content (1680 posts, 78.5%) lacked a COI statement. Authors were mostly academic (89%), mostly held MD degrees (67.4%), and were mostly men (59.7%). Geographically, most FOAM authors reside in the United States (59.5%), Canada (22.42%), or the United Kingdom (9.4%).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>Of all the posts in the top 25 sites in 2020, more than half came from six sites, and authors were largely North American men in academics with MD degrees. Learners, content creators, and educators should consider the ways in which a more diverse authorship pool might bring value to the FOAM educational experience.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":37032,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"AEM Education and Training\",\"volume\":\"8 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/aet2.10995\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"AEM Education and Training\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aet2.10995\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AEM Education and Training","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aet2.10995","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景 免费开放医学教育(FOAM)尽管没有传统的同行评审程序,但在学习者和教育者中却非常受欢迎。尽管有可能出现内容不准确、质量低或有偏见的情况,但很少有关于免费开放医学教育作者的文章发表。 方法 我们对 2020 年社交媒体指数排名前 25 位的博客在 2020-2021 年 8 月的 12 个月内容进行了横向分析。我们记录了每个网站的文章数量和作者的描述性特征,包括性别归属、利益冲突 (COI) 声明和实践类型(学术、社区或混合)。 结果 我们确认了 1001 位作者发表的 2141 篇文章。其中一半以上是由六个网站发布的:EM Docs(266 篇)、Life in the Fast Lane(232 篇)、EMCrit(188 篇)、ALiEM(185 篇)、Don't Forget the Bubbles(181 篇)和 Rebel EM(174 篇)。大多数内容(1680 篇,78.5%)缺乏 COI 声明。作者多为学术界人士(89%),大多拥有医学博士学位(67.4%),且多为男性(59.7%)。从地域上看,大多数 FOAM 作者居住在美国(59.5%)、加拿大(22.42%)或英国(9.4%)。 结论 在 2020 年排名前 25 位的所有帖子中,一半以上来自 6 个网站,作者主要是拥有医学博士学位的北美男性学者。学习者、内容创建者和教育者应考虑如何让更多样化的作者库为 FOAM 教育体验带来价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
FOAM authorship: Who's teaching our learners?

Background

Free open-access medical education (FOAM) is extremely popular among learners and educators despite lacking the traditional peer review process. Despite the potential for inaccurate, low-quality, or biased content, little has been published describing FOAM authors.

Methods

We performed a cross-sectional analysis of 12 months of content from the top 25 blogs in the 2020 Social Media Index from August 2020–2021. We recorded the number of posts per site and descriptive characteristics of authors, including gender affiliation, conflicts of interest (COI) statements, and type of practice (academic, community, or hybrid).

Results

We identified 2141 posts by 1001 authors. More than half were produced by six websites: EM Docs (266), Life in the Fast Lane (232), EMCrit (188), ALiEM (185), Don't Forget the Bubbles (181), and Rebel EM (174). Most content (1680 posts, 78.5%) lacked a COI statement. Authors were mostly academic (89%), mostly held MD degrees (67.4%), and were mostly men (59.7%). Geographically, most FOAM authors reside in the United States (59.5%), Canada (22.42%), or the United Kingdom (9.4%).

Conclusions

Of all the posts in the top 25 sites in 2020, more than half came from six sites, and authors were largely North American men in academics with MD degrees. Learners, content creators, and educators should consider the ways in which a more diverse authorship pool might bring value to the FOAM educational experience.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
AEM Education and Training
AEM Education and Training Nursing-Emergency Nursing
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
22.20%
发文量
89
期刊最新文献
AI passed the test, but can it make the rounds? Effects of opening a vertical care area on emergency medicine resident clinical experience. Precision education in medicine: A necessary transformation to better prepare physicians to meet the needs of their patients Use of in situ simulation to improve team performance and utilization of a rapid sequence intubation checklist Issue Information
×
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