Small-group CME using e-mail discussions. Can it work?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PROBLEM BEING ADDRESSED: Traditional continuing medical education (CME) approaches do not work well in changing physicians' behaviour, but some promising strategies and technologies might help. Our program sought to meld small-group learning with an Internet e-mail approach. OBJECTIVE OF PROGRAM: In 1994, the Family medicine Education and Research Network (FERN) was developed to support on-line discussion among London, Ont, and area family physicians. To support educational, moderated case discussions using e-mail, FERN Dissemination (FERN-D) was introduced to a subgroup of participants. We hoped to increase awareness and use of evidence-based research in clinical practice and to increase use of Internet-based resources for CME. The target group was family physicians in the London area. MAIN COMPONENTS OF PROGRAM: Forty volunteers were recruited and were e-mailed one case every 2 weeks; 34 completed the study. Each case was followed by further postings and, at the end of 2 weeks, by a summary of the group's discussion. Background material for each case was researched and was evidence-based. Evaluation was conducted using preintervention and postintervention mailed surveys combined with an e-mail feedback questionnaire and a modified focus group. CONCLUSION: On-line case-based discussion is a promising strategy for encouraging family physicians to access current research. More research is needed to determine whether it can be effectively used to change physicians' practice.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".