Evaluation of a problem-based learning workshop using pre- and post-test objective structured clinical examinations and standardized patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Osteoporosis is a health care issue in which family physicians play a major role. Although awareness of osteoporosis is high, recent studies suggest that application of recent advances in its treatment to the clinical setting may be low. We have developed a problem-based learning intervention for osteoporosis in which paired rheumatologists and family physicians developed nine problem-solving clinical scenarios. An educational matrix was used to link specific case scenarios with individual teaching objectives, developed via a previous needs assessment. Family physicians participated in the workshop, developing best practice responses to the clinical scenarios with a trained facilitator and content expert. METHODS: To assess the impact of this intervention, family physicians participated in a pre- and post-test evaluation, using objective structured clinical examinations and standardized patients. Objective structured clinical examination stations tested knowledge, skills, and judgment relating to osteoporosis with respect to risk factors, use of appropriate investigations including bone mineral densitometry (BMD), strategies for the prevention of osteoporosis (both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic), treatment options for established osteoporosis (bisphosphonates and hormone replacement therapy), and management of recent osteoporosis fracture. Participants were evaluated using a predetermined score generated by their responses to objective structured clinical examinations and standardized patients (max. score = 101). Evaluations were conducted anonymously, although participants had access to their own pre- and post-test results for personal feedback. The impact of the workshop was assessed by comparing pre- and post-test responses by group, by individual, and by station. RESULTS: Participants demonstrated a significant improvement in their post-workshop scores. Of 40 participants, 26 showed improvement in score (> +10), 13 showed modest change (+1 to +10), and 1 showed a marked decrease (> -10). The greatest improvements were seen in the management of the male osteoporosis patient, determination of risk factors for osteoporosis, and the use and interpretation of bone mineral densitometry. Family physicians reported general satisfaction with the content and format of both the workshop and the evaluation process. IMPLICATIONS: We conclude that this type of problem-based learning intervention workshop results in improved knowledge, skills, and judgment in the management of osteoporosis by family physicians as objectively assessed using a pre- and post-test format including objective structured clinical examinations and standardized patients.
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 | 0.014 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".