MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385521434 · doi:10.2196/48586

The Impact of Web-Based Continuing Medical Education Using Patient Simulation on Real-World Treatment Selection in Type 2 Diabetes: Retrospective Case-Control Analysis

2023· article· en· W4385521434 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Katie Lucero, Amy Larkin, Stanislav O. Zakharkin, Carol Wysham, John E. Anderson

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Education · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineContinuing medical educationIntervention (counseling)GlycemicOdds ratioType 2 diabetesInternal medicineDiabetes mellitusFamily medicineContinuing educationMedical educationNursingInsulinEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Despite guidelines recommending the use of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) in certain patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), they are not being prescribed for many of these patients. Web-based continuing medical education (CME) patient simulations have been used to identify clinicians' practice gaps and improve clinical decision-making as measured within a simulation, but the impact of this format on real-world treatment has not been researched. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the effect of a simulation-based CME intervention on real-world use of GLP-1 RAs by endocrinologists and primary care physicians. METHODS: Two evaluation phases of the CME simulation were conducted: phase I, the CME simulation phase, was a paired, pre-post study of 435 physician learners in the United States; and phase II, the real-world phase, was a retrospective, matched case-control study of 157 of the 435 physicians who had claims data available for the study period. RESULTS: Phase I CME results showed a 29 percentage point increase in correct decisions from pre- to postfeedback (178/435, 40.9% to 304/435, 69.9%; P<.001) in selecting treatment that addresses both glycemic control and cardiovascular event protection. Phase II results showed that 39 of 157 (24.8%) physicians in the intervention group increased use of GLP-1 RAs, compared to 20 of 157 (12.7%) in the comparison group. Being in the intervention group predicted GLP-1 RA use after education (odds ratio 4.49; 95% CI 1.45-13.97; P=.001). CONCLUSIONS: A web-based CME simulation focused on secondary prevention of cardiovascular events in a patient with T2D was associated with increased use of evidence-based treatment selection in the real world.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.465
Threshold uncertainty score0.559

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.351 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical EducationSame topicDiabetes Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207