Evaluation of a National Online Educational Program in Geriatric Psychiatry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study provides evaluation results of an online study group (OSG) for geriatric psychiatry continuing professional development. METHODS: The OSG is an interactive, expert-facilitated, asynchronous educational experience for psychiatrists and residents in Canada. A retrospective web survey assessed self-efficacy, knowledge in geriatric psychiatry, comfort with online learning, and perceived effectiveness of the instructional methods. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and descriptive statistics were calculated. RESULTS: Twenty-nine (of 50) participants (58 %) completed the questionnaire. Although only 48 % of respondents reported improved perceived knowledge, 79 % reported improved efficacy beliefs, and 76 % reported improved comfort with online learning. Most (79 %) would consider taking OSG again, and 93 % would recommend it to others. CONCLUSIONS: The OSG was well-received, with greater benefits for self-efficacy with the material and comfort with online learning than for perceived knowledge itself. Further research is needed to ascertain actual knowledge change in the context of online learning in medical education.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".