Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36562023›Full record

ArticleAEM education and training2022

"Faces on a screen": A qualitative study of the virtual and in-person conference experience.

Michael Gottlieb, Stefanie S Sebok-Syer, Abigail Bawden, Meeta Shah, Jaime Jordan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in AEM education and training, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. 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

5 authors.

Michael GottliebDepartment of Emergency Medicine Rush University Medical Center Chicago Illinois USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3276-8375
Stefanie S Sebok-SyerDepartment of Emergency Medicine Stanford University Palo Alto California USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3572-5971
Abigail BawdenRush Medical College Chicago Illinois USA.
Meeta ShahDepartment of Emergency Medicine Rush University Medical Center Chicago Illinois USA.
Jaime JordanDepartment of Emergency Medicine David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles California USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The strengths and weaknesses of virtual and in-person formats within continuing professional development (CPD) are incompletely understood. This study sought to explore attendees' perspectives across multiple specialties regarding benefits and limitations of conference formats and strategies for successful virtual and hybrid (i.e., in-person conferences with a virtual option) conferences. Methods: From December 2020 to January 2021, semistructured interviews were conducted with participants who attended both virtual and in-person CPD conferences. Purposive sampling was utilized to ensure diverse representation of gender, years in practice, location, academic rank, specialty, and practice type. Multiple specialties were intentionally sought to better understand the broader experience among physicians in general, rather than among a specific specialty. Using modified grounded theory approach with a constructivist-interpretivist paradigm, two investigators independently analyzed all interview transcripts. Discrepancies were resolved by in-depth discussion and negotiated consensus. Results: Twenty-six individuals across 16 different specialties were interviewed. We identified three overarching concepts: motivations to attend conferences, benefits and limitations of different conference formats, and strategies to optimize virtual and hybrid conferences. Specific motivators included both professional and personal factors. Benefits of in person included networking/community, immersion, and wellness, while the major limitation was integration with personal life. Benefits of virtual were flexibility, accessibility, and incorporation of technology, while limitations included technical challenges, distractions, limitations for tactile learning, and communication/connection. Benefits of hybrid included more options for access, while limitations included challenges with synchrony of formats and dilution of experiences. Strategies to improve virtual/hybrid conferences included optimizing technology/production, facilitating networking and engagement, and deliberate selection of content. Conclusions: This study identified several benefits and limitations of each medium as well as strategies to optimize virtual and hybrid CPD conferences. This may help inform future CPD conference planning for both attendees and conference planners alike.

Identifiers

PMID36562023
PMCPMC9763964

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.