A Randomized-Controlled Trial Comparing Efficacy and User Satisfaction of Audio Podcasts Versus a Traditional Lecture on Multiple Sclerosis in Family Medicine Resident Education (P4.195)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and user satisfaction of podcasts versus a traditional lecture in resident education. BACKGROUND: Podcasting technology has been increasingly adopted to enhance health education. Advantages include low implementation costs, positive user experiences, and effectiveness at meeting educational goals. We previously conducted a needs assessment survey amongst family medicine residents (n=77) and showed that 84[percnt] of family medicine residents indicated that they were either “very interested” or “somewhat interested” in listening to neurology podcasts. DESIGN/METHODS: In the current study, we randomized 2nd year family medicine residents (n=49) to either attend a formal lecture (n=25) or to listen to two podcasts (n=24) on multiple sclerosis. We used pre- and post-test scores of an exam marked by a blinded adjudicator to assess efficacy, and a 5-point Likert scale to assess satisfaction. RESULTS: There was low baseline knowledge about multiple sclerosis in both groups (the lecture group pre-test mean score was 13.9±3.2*/80 and the podcast group pre-test mean score was 16.9±3.2/80; P=0.20). Both groups improved significantly following the intervention, but the podcast group appeared to improve more as measured by the mean post-test scores (the lecture group improved by 41.7±1.6 to 55.7±4.2/80 and the podcast group improved by 49.8±1.5 to 66.7±2.6/80; P<0.01). There was no significant difference in the user satisfaction between the lecture and the podcast on a 5-pt Likert scale (4.45±0.44 in the lecture group versus 4.19±0.35 in the podcast group; P=0.37). The greater improvement on post-test scores in the podcast group was unexpected and may have been due to slower pacing in the podcast. In the podcast group, 100[percnt] were either “very interested” or “somewhat interested” in listening to further neurology podcasts. CONCLUSION: Overall our study demonstrates that podcasts are an effective tool in medical education with similar efficacy and user satisfaction to traditional lectures. *95[percnt] CI
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".