Evaluation of the ‘Strongest Link’: interactive continuing education
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Context and setting Although continuing medical education (CME) providers are in agreement over the advantages of interactive learning, most doctor learners express a preference for lecture-style formats. Unfortunately, didactic lectures require only 1 teacher for hundreds of learners, whereas small groups require many more teachers. As the cost of providing CME in North America is in the billions of dollars and given that recruiting speakers may be getting more difficult, cost-effective strategies for delivering interactive programmes are clearly needed. Why the idea was necessary One of the more recent developments in CME programming has been the use of game formats for teaching. The idea of using games for medical teaching is not new and games have been used in undergraduate instruction in medicine and nursing. Reports have demonstrated increased satisfaction among participants. Similar articles describing the evaluation of games-based CME are rare. It is expected that games-type activities that are more enjoyable may increase participant interest in more effective interactive formats. The ‘Strongest Link’ is a programme that incorporates the benefits of interactive, small-group learning in a large-group setting and decreases the need for multiple faculty members. The purpose of this study was to examine the difference between a didactic format and the game format of the Strongest Link by assessing knowledge acquisition and retention, and levels of satisfaction. What was done Family doctors were recruited from 4 Canadian cities. All participants were given the same information related to family medicine topics. The sites were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 educational formats: didactic or Strongest Link. The Strongest Link games-based programme consisted of 15 controversial true/false questions relating to a single topic. Participants in a large-group setting were divided into small groups and seated at round tables to discuss each question. Participants were given an opportunity to express the reason they chose their answer for each question. Answers to the questions were supported by current, peer-reviewed, published medical literature and discussed by a content expert. Evaluation of results and impact A total of 22 programmes were held in 4 different sites. Results demonstrate higher knowledge gains among participants using the Strongest Link format (P = 0.01). Knowledge gains were maintained at 1-month follow-up testing (P < 0.01). Participant satisfaction did not significantly differ between the formats (P = 0.72), but the type of format significantly affected the participants’ retention of content (P = 0.01). Qualitative comments from evaluation forms showed a preference for the games-based programme. From 9 participant interviews, 5 main themes emerged: the benefits of interactivity; the confirmation of knowledge among peers; the discovery of unperceived needs; that the Strongest Link was a better educational format, and that the traditional event was more comfortable for participants. The Strongest Link project provides evidence that learning in a game-type format can be more interactive despite being a large-group activity. Therefore, innovative learning formats should be developed in a supportive environment that is both enjoyable and competitive. Such initiatives will breathe new life into tried and tested CME programmes.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,034 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».