ArticleCureus2024
Innovative Approaches to Continuing Medical Education.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice of Vital Pulp Therapy Among Dental Professionals in Taif, Saudi Arabia: A Cross-sectional Study.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2025Review
- Daily SPARK-A Comic Style eMicrolearning to Enhance Clinical Reasoning and Reinforce Conceptual Understanding in Biochemistry Promoting Its Application to Clinical Practice.Biochemistry and molecular biology education : a bimonthly publication of the International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular BiologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundContinuing medical education (CME) is vital for healthcare professionals to maintain clinical competence and keep pace with the rapidly evolving medical landscape. Traditional CME models often fall short of meeting the dynamic needs of modern healthcare professionals.
objectiveThis study explores innovative CME methods, including microlearning, Just-in-Time Training (JITT), and digital platforms, to assess their effectiveness and identify potential barriers to adoption.
methodsA mixed-methods approach was employed, integrating a systematic literature review with quantitative surveys of 300 healthcare professionals and qualitative interviews with 50 CME administrators. The study was conducted at Birmingham Heartlands Hospital. Statistical analyses were performed on the quantitative data, while thematic analysis was applied to qualitative responses to identify key themes and insights.
resultsMicrolearning was regularly utilized by 234 participants (78%), with 204 participants (68%) indicating it as their preferred learning method due to its flexibility and efficiency. JITT was particularly valued in critical care settings, with 135 participants (45%) employing it and 210 participants (70%) expressing high satisfaction. Digital platforms were accessed by 276 participants (92%), with 264 participants (88%) expressing satisfaction with their content diversity and ease of access. Major barriers identified included digital literacy challenges, reported by 156 participants (52%), and technological access limitations, reported by 144 participants (48%).
conclusionInnovative CME approaches like microlearning, JITT, and digital platforms show great promise in aligning with the current needs of healthcare professionals. Addressing barriers such as digital literacy and technological infrastructure is essential to ensure widespread adoption and maximize their impact on healthcare outcomes.
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.