ArticleAEM education and training2020
FOAM Impact: The Influence of Open-access Medical Education on Practice Uptake.
Article in AEM education and training, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating Effectiveness of YouTube Videos for Teaching Medical Students CPR: Solution to Optimizing Clinician Educator Workload during the COVID-19 Pandemic.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- FOAM Impact: The Influence of Open-access Medical Education on Practice Uptake.AEM education and training · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe FOAM Impact study sought to examine baseline rates of intravenous (IV) lidocaine usage for the treatment of renal colic and to compare rates of use between FOAM utilizers and nonutilizers. We sought to measure the effect of FOAM resources on clinical practice by timing the release of FOAM content with publication of the LIDOKET trial.
methodsA cross-sectional before-and-after survey was conducted and disseminated on two social media platforms. The 13-question, anonymous survey was posted for 1 week prior following the release of the LIDOKET study. Descriptive statistics, Mann-Whitney t-test, and chi-square test statistics were used to describe survey respondent characteristics and Likert responses.
resultsThere were a total of 472 survey respondents. A total of 321 physicians (75.7% of total respondents) provided pre- and postpublication survey answers. There was no significant change in the use of analgesics before and after publication of LIDOKET and concurrent REBEL EM blog post. A total of 197 (42%) survey respondents reported using lidocaine for renal colic, of which 60 respondents (13%) reported frequent or occasional use. The mean difference in perceived efficacy of lidocaine before and after publication was -0.30 (95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.80 to 0.19, p = 0.15). Being a FOAM user was not associated with changes in mean difference in perception of lidocaine efficacy (F = 0.127, p = 0.72); however, there was a significant difference in perception of lidocaine's efficacy following LIDOKET and REBEL EM publication (F = 4.718, p = 0.03).
conclusionsUsing an online survey-based technique, no appreciable impact of FOAM resources was immediately apparent; however, engagement with FOAM was associated with a change in perception of IV lidocaine's efficacy. To our knowledge, this is the first study of its kind to evaluate the impact of FOAM on clinical practice. The unique method of coordinating FOAM distribution with traditional medical publication may provide future opportunities for measuring the impact of asynchronous medical education resources on medical practice.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.