Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20113493›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2010

A comparative evaluation of the effect of Internet-based CME delivery format on satisfaction, knowledge and confidence.

Vernon R Curran, Lisa J Fleet, Fran Kirby

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing 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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Alternatives surgical training approaches during COVID-19 pandemic.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2021
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Vernon R CurranProfessional Development & Conferencing Services, Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University, St John's, Canada. vcurran@mun.ca
Lisa J Fleet
Fran Kirby

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInternet-based instruction in continuing medical education (CME) has been associated with favorable outcomes. However, more direct comparative studies of different Internet-based interventions, instructional methods, presentation formats, and approaches to implementation are needed. The purpose of this study was to conduct a comparative evaluation of two Internet-based CME delivery formats and the effect on satisfaction, knowledge and confidence outcomes.

methodsEvaluative outcomes of two differing formats of an Internet-based CME course with identical subject matter were compared. A Scheduled Group Learning format involved case-based asynchronous discussions with peers and a facilitator over a scheduled 3-week delivery period. An eCME On Demand format did not include facilitated discussion and was not based on a schedule; participants could start and finish at any time. A retrospective, pre-post evaluation study design comparing identical satisfaction, knowledge and confidence outcome measures was conducted.

resultsParticipants in the Scheduled Group Learning format reported significantly higher mean satisfaction ratings in some areas, performed significantly higher on a post-knowledge assessment and reported significantly higher post-confidence scores than participants in the eCME On Demand format that was not scheduled and did not include facilitated discussion activity.

conclusionsThe findings support the instructional benefits of a scheduled delivery format and facilitated asynchronous discussion in Internet-based CME.

Indexed as

Consumer BehaviorHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeInternetSelf EfficacyEducation, DistanceEducation, Medical, ContinuingFemaleHumansMaleProgram EvaluationRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID20113493
PMCPMC2835720

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.