MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4376564196 · doi:10.1111/medu.15113

Modernizing Journal Club to Teach Evidence‐Based Practice

2023· article· en· W4376564196 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ebtehal Qulisy, Geoff Dougherty, Kholoud Hothan, Mylène Dandavino

Notice bibliographique

RevueMedical Education · 2023
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueHealth Sciences Research and Education
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCritical appraisalSession (web analytics)Medical educationFacilitatorCurriculumCornerstoneJournal clubEvidence-based practicePsychologySet (abstract data type)MedicinePedagogyAlternative medicineComputer science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Effective critical appraisal of published literature is a fundamental competency needed for residents' educational growth and transition to practice. While journal clubs (JCs) are a cornerstone for learning critical appraisal and evidence-based practice (EBP), traditional JCs are often ineffective in maintaining trainees' interest and achieving the targeted educational objectives. JCs curricula face important challenges: poor sustainability over time, inconsistent participant preparation and lack of trainee skills and perceived self-efficacy with critical appraisal. A flipped classroom model for JCs might make it possible to teach EBP in a more modern and effective way. We propose a novel and easy-to-implement educational activity to teach critical appraisal. This 60-minute session requires no advanced preparation by the trainees. Sessions are tailored to cover three educational activities and are adaptable to in-person, virtual or hybrid contexts. To set the stage, the session facilitator presents a clinical scenario that highlights a ‘conundrum’ or an ‘area of controversy’ in the field. Participants, placed in groups of three to five trainees of various training levels, are first given time to highlight and discuss conundrums related to the case topic. This activity would usually take 10 minutes, with around 4 minutes of independent work to identify the conundrums. As a second activity, participants are asked to identify two or three clinical guidelines that relate to the case topic and then compare and contrast them. Participants were given 25 minutes to complete this task, with the last 10 minutes reserved for group discussions. For the third activity, participants were tasked with finding a recent article regarding the scenario's topic and then presenting it briefly. This last activity usually takes 15 minutes, with an initial 5 minutes for the literature review. During each group discussion, the facilitator ensured that the participants discussed the resources they used and their approach to searching the literature. All trainees rotating on the inpatient unit at Montréal Children's Hospital were invited to participate. Sessions were conducted monthly as a part of an existing weekly academic activity during the spring of 2022. Sessions were facilitated by paediatricians with experience in critical appraisal. Participants' evaluation was gathered using a non-mandatory anonymous evaluation survey at the end of each session. While the traditional approach to JCs is fraught with challenges, our educational session inspired by the flipped classroom model demonstrates that they can still play a meaningful role in teaching critical appraisal and EBP. Our sessions were short and easy to fit into a busy inpatient unit's protected teaching time. As they required no advanced preparation, the busy senior trainees' attendance was maximised. McGill University provides full-text access to major health care journals, which facilitated the activities. The session's activities fostered active participation, near-peer collaborative learning, experiential learning and the utilisation of modern technology. Participants felt that these sessions were helpful in learning EBP and that they represented “real-life” practice. Case scenarios were relatively easy to create, and although we did not encounter this issue, session success likely depends on choosing the right topic for the participant audience. Ebtehal Qulisy: Conceptualization; data curation; investigation; project administration; writing original draft. Geoffrey Dougherty: Conceptualization; methodology; project administration; review and editing; supervision. Kholoud Hothan: Project administration; review and editing. Mylene Dandavino: Conceptualization; methodology; project administration; review and editing; supervision.

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 machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,010
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: Méthodes · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,990
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,064

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0100,025
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0030,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,002
Communication savante0,0030,004
Science ouverte0,0020,006
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0190,009

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,311
Tête enseignante GPT0,632
Écart entre enseignants0,320 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
DomaineMéthodes
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations5
Publié2023
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueMedical EducationMême sujetHealth Sciences Research and EducationTravaux en français237 207