Using Project ECHO to deliver a tele-mentoring and teaching program on palliative care in South Asia: Interpretive description of participants’ experiences with a community of practice for learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To explore the learning experiences of participants (learners and teachers), in a yearlong tele-teaching and mentoring program on pediatric palliative care, which was conducted using the Project ECHO (Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes) model and consisted of 27 teaching and clinical case discussion sessions for palliative medicine residents in India and Bangladesh. The goal of the study is to explore how participation and learning is motivated and sustained for both residents and teachers, including the motivators and challenges to participation and learning in a novel online format. METHODS: Qualitative interviews with ECHO participants, including learners and teachers were conducted. Interviews were recorded and transcribed. Thematic analysis of interview data was conducted within an interpretive description approach. RESULTS: Eleven physicians (6 residents, 5 teachers) participated in interviews. Key elements of the ECHO program which participants identified as supporting learning and participation include small group discussions, a flipped classroom, and asynchronous interactions through social media. Individual learner characteristics including effective self-reflection and personal circumstances impact learning. Providing opportunities for a diverse group of learners and teachers, to interact in communities of practice (COP) enhances learning. Three major themes and 6 subthemes describing learning processes were identified. Themes included (1) ECHO program structure, (2) learner characteristics, and (3) COP. Subthemes included flipped classroom, breakout rooms, learning resources, personal circumstances, self-awareness of learning needs, and community interactions. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Project ECHO suggests a novel model to train health providers, which is effective in low- and middle-income countries. Online learning programs can lead to learning through community of practice when learners and teachers are able to interact and engage in peer support and reflective practice. Educators should consider incorporating small group discussions, a flipped classroom design, and opportunities for asynchronous interactions to enhance learning for participants in online learning programs.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".