Blog
About

0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      The use of free online educational resources by Canadian emergency medicine residents and program directors

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          Online educational resources (OERs) are increasingly available for emergency medicine (EM) education. This study describes and compares the use of free OERs by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada (RCPSC) EM residents and program directors (PDs) and investigates the relationship between the use of OERs and peer-reviewed literature.

          Methods

          A bilingual, online survey was distributed to RCPSC-EM residents and PDs using a modified Dillman method. The chi-square test and Fisher’s exact test were used to compare the responses of residents and PDs.

          Results

          The survey was completed by 214/350 (61%) residents and 11/14 (79%) PDs. Free OERs were used by residents most frequently for general EM education (99.5%), procedural skills training (96%), and learning to interpret diagnostic tests (92%). OER modalities used most frequently included wikis (95%), file-sharing websites (95%), e-textbooks (94%), and podcasts (91%). Residents used wikis, podcasts, vodcasts, and file-sharing websites significantly more frequently than PDs. Relative to PDs, residents found entertainment value to be more important for choosing OERs ( p<0.01). Some residents (23%) did not feel that literature references were important, whereas all PDs did. Both groups reported that OERs increased the amount of peer-reviewed literature (75% and 60%, respectively) that they read.

          Conclusions

          EM residents make extensive use of OERs and differ from their PDs in the importance that they place on their entertainment value and incorporation of peer-reviewed references. OERs may increase the use of peer-reviewed literature in both groups. Given the prevalence of OER use for core educational goals among RCPSC-EM trainees, future efforts to facilitate critical appraisal and appropriate resource selection are warranted.

          RÉSUMÉ

          Introduction

          Il existe de plus en plus de ressources didactiques en ligne (RDL) pouvant servir à la formation en médecine d’urgence (MU). L’étude dont il question ici vise à décrire et à comparer l’utilisation des RDL gratuites par les résidents en MU du Collège royal des médecins et chirurgiens du Canada et les directeurs de programme (DP), ainsi qu’à examiner le lien entre l’utilisation des RDL et la lecture de documents évalués par les pairs.

          Méthode

          Un questionnaire d’enquête bilingue, en ligne a été envoyé, selon une version modifiée de la méthode de Dillman, à tous les résidents en MU du Collège royal et aux DP. Les auteurs ont appliqué le test Khi 2 et la méthode exacte de Fisher pour comparer les réponses des résidents et celles des DP.

          Résultats

          Dans l’ensemble, 214 résidents sur 350 (61 %) et 11 DP sur 14 (79 %) ont participé à l’enquête. Les RDL gratuites utilisées par les résidents concernaient surtout la formation générale en MU (99,5 %), l’acquisition de compétences techniques (96 %) et l’apprentissage de l’interprétation des examens de diagnostic (92 %). Les formes de RDL très souvent utilisées comprenaient les sites wikis (95 %), les sites Web de partage de fichiers (95 %), les livres numériques (94 %) et les fichiers balados (91 %). Les résidents utilisaient les sites wikis, les fichiers balados, les fichiers balados vidéos et les sites Web de partage de fichiers beaucoup plus souvent que les DP. En outre, les résidents accordaient plus d’importance à la valeur du divertissement que les DP dans le choix des RDL ( p < 0,01). En revanche, quelques résidents (23 %) estimaient que les références bibliographiques n’étaient pas importantes, contrairement à tous les DP. Enfin, les participants dans les deux groupes ont indiqué que l’utilisation des RDL avait pour effet d’accroître la lecture de documents évalués par les pairs (75 % et 60 %, respectivement).

          Conclusions

          Les résidents en MU font un usage très répandu des RDL et ils se distinguent des DP par la valeur accordée au divertissement et à l’indication des références dans les documents évalués par les pairs. Les RDL peuvent accroître la lecture de documents évalués par les pairs dans les deux groupes. Compte tenu de la grande utilisation des RDL que font les stagiaires en MU du Collège royal pour atteindre des buts pédagogiques de base, il est justifié de faire de la recherche sur les moyens visant à faciliter l’évaluation critique et la sélection appropriée des ressources.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 20

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          How quickly do systematic reviews go out of date? A survival analysis.

          Systematic reviews are often advocated as the best source of evidence to guide clinical decisions and health care policy, yet we know little about the extent to which they require updating. To estimate the average time to changes in evidence that are sufficiently important to warrant updating systematic reviews. Survival analysis of 100 quantitative systematic reviews. Systematic reviews published from 1995 to 2005 and indexed in ACP Journal Club. Eligible reviews evaluated a specific drug or class of drug, device, or procedure and included only randomized or quasi-randomized, controlled trials. Quantitative signals for updating were changes in statistical significance or relative changes in effect magnitude of at least 50% involving 1 of the primary outcomes of the original systematic review or any mortality outcome. Qualitative signals included substantial differences in characterizations of effectiveness, new information about harm, and caveats about the previously reported findings that would affect clinical decision making. The cohort of 100 systematic reviews included a median of 13 studies and 2663 participants per review. A qualitative or quantitative signal for updating occurred for 57% of reviews (95% CI, 47% to 67%). Median duration of survival free of a signal for updating was 5.5 years (CI, 4.6 to 7.6 years). However, a signal occurred within 2 years for 23% of reviews and within 1 year for 15%. In 7%, a signal had already occurred at the time of publication. Only 4% of reviews had a signal within 1 year of the end of the reported search period; 11% had a signal within 2 years of the search. Shorter survival was associated with cardiovascular topics (hazard ratio, 2.70 [CI, 1.36 to 5.34]) and heterogeneity in the original review (hazard ratio, 2.15 [CI, 1.12 to 4.11]). Judgments of the need for updating were made without involving content experts. In a cohort of high-quality systematic reviews directly relevant to clinical practice, signals for updating occurred frequently and within a relatively short time.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Social media use in medical education: a systematic review.

            The authors conducted a systematic review of the published literature on social media use in medical education to answer two questions: (1) How have interventions using social media tools affected outcomes of satisfaction, knowledge, attitudes, and skills for physicians and physicians-in-training? and (2) What challenges and opportunities specific to social media have educators encountered in implementing these interventions? The authors searched the MEDLINE, CINAHL, ERIC, Embase, PsycINFO, ProQuest, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus databases (from the start of each through September 12, 2011) using keywords related to social media and medical education. Two authors independently reviewed the search results to select peer-reviewed, English-language articles discussing social media use in educational interventions at any level of physician training. They assessed study quality using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument. Fourteen studies met inclusion criteria. Interventions using social media tools were associated with improved knowledge (e.g., exam scores), attitudes (e.g., empathy), and skills (e.g., reflective writing). The most commonly reported opportunities related to incorporating social media tools were promoting learner engagement (71% of studies), feedback (57%), and collaboration and professional development (both 36%). The most commonly cited challenges were technical issues (43%), variable learner participation (43%), and privacy/security concerns (29%). Studies were generally of low to moderate quality; there was only one randomized controlled trial. Social media use in medical education is an emerging field of scholarship that merits further investigation. Educators face challenges in adapting new technologies, but they also have opportunities for innovation.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Free Open Access Meducation (FOAM): the rise of emergency medicine and critical care blogs and podcasts (2002-2013).

              Disruptive technologies are revolutionising continuing professional development in emergency medicine and critical care (EMCC). Data on EMCC blogs and podcasts were gathered prospectively from 2002 through November 2013. During this time there was a rapid expansion of EMCC websites, from two blogs and one podcast in 2002 to 141 blogs and 42 podcasts in 2013. This paper illustrates the explosive growth of EMCC websites and provides a foundation that will anchor future research in this burgeoning field.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                CJEM
                CJEM
                Cambridge University Press (CUP)
                1481-8035
                1481-8043
                March 2015
                April 01 2015
                March 2015
                : 17
                : 2
                : 101-106
                Article
                10.1017/cem.2014.73
                25927253
                © 2015

                https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms

                Comments

                Comment on this article