Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12186658›Full record

ArticleBMC family practice2002

Increasing the satisfaction of general practitioners with continuing medical education programs: a method for quality improvement through increasing teacher-learner interaction.

Leonid Gercenshtein, Yacov Fogelman, John Yaphe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC family practice, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Leonid GercenshteinDepartment of Family Medicine, Rabin Medical Centre and Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. leonidw@zahav.net.il
Yacov Fogelman
John Yaphe

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundContinuing medical education (CME) for general practitioners relies on specialist-based teaching methods in many settings. Formal lectures by specialists may not meet the learning needs of practitioners and may cause dissatisfaction with traditional CME. Increasing learner involvement in teaching programs may improve learner satisfaction.

methodsA quality improvement program for CME for 18 general practitioners in the Tel Aviv region was designed as a result of dissatisfaction with traditional CME activities. A two-step strategy for change was developed. The CME participants first selected the study topics relevant to them from a needs assessment and prepared background material on the topics. In the second step, specialist teachers were invited to answer questions arising from the preparation of selected topics. Satisfaction with the traditional lecture program and the new participatory program were assessed by a questionnaire. The quality criteria included the relevance, importance and applicability of the CME topic chosen to the participant's practice, the clarity of the presentation and the effective use of teaching aids by the lecturer and the potential of the lecturer to serve as a consultant to the participant.

resultsThe participatory model of CME significantly increased satisfaction with relevance, applicability and interest in CME topics compared to the traditional lecture format.

conclusionsIncreased learner participation in the selection and preparation of CME topics, and increased interaction between CME teachers and learners results in increased satisfaction with teaching programs. Future study of the effect of this model on physician performance is required.

Indexed as

Consumer BehaviorPhysicians, FamilyCurriculumEducation, Medical, ContinuingFamily PracticeModels, EducationalTeaching

Identifiers

PMID12186658
PMCPMC122091

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.