Does hands-on CME in gynaecologic procedures alter clinical practice?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite evidence favouring initial medical treatment for benign uterine conditions, hysterectomy rates in Ontario, Canada, in the 1990s were variable, and relatively high. Best methods for translating this or any evidence into practice are, however, elusive. AIM: This study evaluates whether an interactive skill development program had an impact on family practice participants' subsequent ability to manage benign uterine conditions medically. METHODS: Effectiveness of 50 experiential 3 h skill transfer workshops with peers teaching IUD insertion, endometrial sampling and pessary fitting (offered 2005-2007) was assessed by measuring changes in actual practice. Family physicians billing the Ontario Health Insurance Plan over 5 years (2003-2007 inclusive) formed the control group with whom 138 FP workshop participants (cases) were compared. RESULTS: Rates of all procedures increased amongst 138 family physician attendees following participation, but remained unchanged amongst controls. Number of physicians offering the target interventions also increased among cases, but not controls. CONCLUSION: Evidence-based information, delivered by peers, and associated with the opportunity to practice new skills appear to be the components of continuing medical education (CME) that translate into improved clinical care.
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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".