Effectiveness of case-based on-line learning of evidence-based practice guidelines.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Traditional continuing medical education (CME) has not been successful in improving physicians'practice. This project evaluated the use of e-mail to deliver evidence-based moderated case discussions to family physicians. METHODS: In a randomized controlled trial, 58 southwestern Ontario physicians were recruited and randomly assigned to receive two evidence-based cases (type 2 diabetes, prevention) or were put on a waiting list to receive the same. On-line discussions took place about each case. Data were collected using two knowledge questionnaires, charts audits, and standardized patient visits for each of the two cases. RESULTS: The two groups were similar except for rural/urban and solo versus group practice. The latter was related to outcomes, and analyses were controlled for this variable. The intervention group showed statistically significant improvements compared to the control group for knowledge and chart-audit scores for one of the two cases. CONCLUSIONS: Using a randomized control design, this e-mail CME method demonstrated mixed effectiveness.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.093 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".