ArticleJournal of CME2023
Evaluating the Impact of Continuing Medical Education in the Interdisciplinary Team: A Novel, Targeted Approach.
Article in Journal of CME, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of the CAPTURE Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Screening Tool in U.S. Primary Care: A Cluster-Randomized Trial.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2025Trial
- Variations in the perceived value of anti-SARS-CoV-2 therapeutics based on physicians' clinical backgrounds.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Development, implementation and evaluation of consultation case-based learning course to improve the interdisciplinary clinical reasoning ability-a pilot study from nephrology.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Leveraging the use of a social media app as a collaborative medical information and knowledge sharing tool-insights from experiential use and survey of a CME WhatsApp community.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Long-Term Effects of Individual-Focused and Team-Based Training on Health Professionals' Intention to Have Serious Illness Conversations: A Cluster Randomised Trial.Journal of CME · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In order to maximise the learning potential of medical education programmes aimed at interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary teams, it is important to understand how the effectiveness of these programmes can vary between healthcare professionals from different specialities. Measuring the impact of educational activities between specialities may facilitate the development of future interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary education programmes, yielding enhanced learner outcomes and, ultimately, improving outcomes for patients. In this analysis, we report on a new approach to measuring change in knowledge and competence among learners from different physician specialities. We did this by tailoring post-activity competency assessments to three specialities - primary care physicians, pulmonologists and immunologists caring for patients with severe asthma. Our findings revealed that primary care physicians had markedly improved knowledge, measured using assessment questions, compared with the other specialities after completing the activity. We also report on differences between these specialities in intention to change clinical practice, confidence in clinical practice, and remaining educational gaps. Understanding how different members of the interdisciplinary team have benefited from an educational activity is essential for designing future educational activities and targeting resources.
Indexed as
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.