ArticleAEM education and training2024
FOAM authorship: Who's teaching our learners?
Article in AEM education and training, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- FOAM authorship: Who's teaching our learners?AEM education and training · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Free open-access medical education (FOAM) is extremely popular among learners and educators despite lacking the traditional peer review process. Despite the potential for inaccurate, low-quality, or biased content, little has been published describing FOAM authors. Methods: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of 12 months of content from the top 25 blogs in the 2020 Social Media Index from August 2020-2021. We recorded the number of posts per site and descriptive characteristics of authors, including gender affiliation, conflicts of interest (COI) statements, and type of practice (academic, community, or hybrid). Results: We identified 2141 posts by 1001 authors. More than half were produced by six websites: EM Docs (266), Life in the Fast Lane (232), EMCrit (188), ALiEM (185), Don't Forget the Bubbles (181), and Rebel EM (174). Most content (1680 posts, 78.5%) lacked a COI statement. Authors were mostly academic (89%), mostly held MD degrees (67.4%), and were mostly men (59.7%). Geographically, most FOAM authors reside in the United States (59.5%), Canada (22.42%), or the United Kingdom (9.4%). Conclusions: Of all the posts in the top 25 sites in 2020, more than half came from six sites, and authors were largely North American men in academics with MD degrees. Learners, content creators, and educators should consider the ways in which a more diverse authorship pool might bring value to the FOAM educational experience.
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.