Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36755621›Full record

ArticleHeliyon2023

Uptake and effectiveness of online diabetes continuing education: The perspectives of Thai general practitioner trainees.

Isaraporn Thepwongsa, Radhakrishnan Muthukumar, Poompong Sripa, Leon Piterman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heliyon, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Isaraporn ThepwongsaFamily Medicine Unit, Department of Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Thailand.
Radhakrishnan MuthukumarAcademic Affairs, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Thailand.
Poompong SripaMedicine for the Elderly Department, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Leon PitermanDepartment of General Practice, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Despite continuing medical education (CME) programmes on evidence-based diabetes care, evidence-based best practice and actual GP practice remain scant. Online CME offers numerous benefits to general practitioners (GPs), particularly during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. In Thailand, CME is a voluntary process and is yet to be established as a mandatory requirement. This study examined GP uptake of online diabetes CME and the changes in GPs' attitudes to and knowledge of Type 2 diabetes management. Methods: A cross-sectional study and a before-and-after study were employed with 279 GP trainees who voluntarily undertook a newly-developed online diabetes programme. A follow-up survey was conducted six months after the GP trainees completed their training. Results: One hundred and twelve out of 279 GP trainees (40.1%) participated in the study, of whom 37 (13.3%) enrolled in the online diabetes programme, and 20 (7.2%) completed the programme. Before enrolling in the programme, the participants' mean diabetes knowledge score was 61.5%. The participants' confidence in effective insulin treatment increased significantly after the programme (95% Confidence interval [CI], -0.51-0.00; P = 0.05), but their knowledge scores before and after the programme were not statistically different (95% CI, -3.93-0.59; P = 0.14). Conclusion: Uptake of the online diabetes CME was poor, although appropriate recruitment strategies were employed, and the online educational option was attractive and accessible during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study emphasises the gap between evidence-based practice and actual GP practice and the need for mandatory CME.

Indexed as

Continuing medical educationGeneral practitionersMedical educationOnline educationType 2 diabetes mellitus

Identifiers

PMID36755621
PMCPMC9900372

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.