Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35711723›Full record

ArticleJournal of European CME2022

Learnings from the forced transition of an industry supported educational programme for young experts in urology and oncology from face-to-face to digital during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Ina Weisshardt, Ivo Vlaev, Trishna Chauhan, Eva Hofstädter-Thalmann

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of European CME, 2022. 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, top 90% of its field
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 citations in OpenAlex.

  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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ina WeisshardtLLH Concepts, Haimhausen, Germany.
Ivo VlaevWarwick Business School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Trishna ChauhanWarwick Business School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6017-3665
Eva Hofstädter-ThalmannJanssen Cilag, Vienna, Austria.
University of Warwick · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

When the COVID-19 pandemic caused face-to-face meetings to be cancelled, an industry-sponsored educational programme, designed to develop skills and expand knowledge of young experts in oncology and urology, was forced to partially move from face-to-face setting to virtual meetings. In our outcomes analysis, we aimed to better understand what drives behavioural change following a series of educational interventions based on the physical or virtual formats. Therefore, we performed a structured outcomes evaluation for each educational intervention, including the perspectives of the learner and the teaching faculty. Our main findings were that "relevance" is the strongest driver of recall, satisfaction and behavioural change. Social interactions amongst learners and between faculty and learners are possible in the digital world, and we observed a trend of the young learners in favour of digital learning, especially with improved technical platforms enabling social interaction. Other findings were that new skills are required by the teaching faculty and that hybrid formats were identified by all participants as the model of the future. When developing future educational programmes, these specific needs of learners and faculty need to be considered and offer opportunities to develop more personalised programmes in order to increase learning impact.

Indexed as

digital formatsdigitalisationhybrid meetingslifelong learningMedical educationrelevance of learning

Identifiers

PMID35711723
PMCPMC9196841
OpenAlexW4281912308

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.