Practice-based small group learning programs: systematic review.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify the format, content, and effects of practice-based small group learning (PBSGL) programs involving FPs. DATA SOURCES: The Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and ERIC databases were searched from inception to the second week of November 2011, yielding 99 articles. STUDY SELECTION: Articles were included in the analysis if they described the format or content of or evaluated PBSGL programs among FPs. Thirteen articles were included in the analysis. SYNTHESIS: Two main PBSGL formats exist. The first is self-directed learning, which includes review and discussion of troubling or challenging patient cases. The contents of such programs vary with different teaching styles. The second format targets specific problems from practice to improve certain knowledge or skills or implement new guidelines by using patient cases to stimulate discussion of the selected topic. Both formats are similar in their ultimate goal, equally important, and well accepted by learners and facilitators. Evaluations of learners' perceptions and learning outcomes indicate that PBSGL constitutes a feasible and effective method of professional development. CONCLUSION: Current evidence suggests that PBSGL is a promising method of continuing professional development for FPs. Such programs can be adapted according to learning needs. Future studies that focus on the changes in practice effected by PBSGL will strengthen the evidence for this form of learning and motivate physicians and institutions to adopt it.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".