Randomized trial of problem-based versus didactic seminars for disseminating evidence-based guidelines on asthma management to primary care physicians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This randomized controlled trial (RCT) investigated the effectiveness of and satisfaction with small-group problem-based learning (PBL) versus a didactic lecture approach to guideline dissemination in asthma management controlling for confounders common in comparative educational interventions. METHODS: Sites were selected as either lecture or PBL using simple randomization. All participants were exposed to similar educational resources to ensure treatment equivalency. Instruments included standardized program/speaker evaluation forms and a validated case-based questionnaire with a visual analogue scale measuring the level of confidence of responses. The latter was presented immediately pre- and post-intervention and 3 months later. The statistician was blinded to intervention groups. RESULTS: Overall, 52 family physicians agreed to participate, 23 in the PBL sessions (mean 4.6 per group) and 29 in the didactic lecture sessions (mean 7.25). There was no significant difference between the groups with respect to the knowledge gained at each test administration. Participants rated the lecturer or facilitator equally well as having established a positive learning environment. PBL participants rated the perceived educational value of the program higher than did lecture participants (4.36 vs. 3.93; p = .04). Both groups experienced a significant increase in asthma-related knowledge post-intervention. Attrition rates for the 3-month post-test were 14% for PBL participants versus 32% for lecture-based participants. DISCUSSION: PBL was as effective in knowledge uptake and retention as lecture-based continuing medical education (CME) programs. Further study is warranted to investigate whether the assessment of higher educational value or an increase in response rate to delayed testing is replicable in other RCTs addressing common confounders and if these factors influence future CME participation, changes in physician clinical behavior, or patient health outcomes.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".