ArticleInternational journal of emergency medicine2026
Free Open Access Medical Education (FOAM) in emergency medicine: use and perceived clinical relevance from a large cross-sectional survey.
Article in International journal of emergency medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFree Open Access Medical Education (FOAM) refers to freely accessible digital educational resources that are increasingly being used for training, continuing education and professional development, particularly in emergency medicine. While FOAM is well established internationally, there are limited data on its use, motives and perceived relevance in German-speaking countries, with multiprofessional perspectives being underrepresented both regionally and internationally.
methodsThe aim of this study was to record usage patterns, sociodemographic characteristics and subjective perceptions of the benefits, limitations and didactic significance of FOAM in German-speaking countries, with a focus on emergency medicine. An exploratory, descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted using a predominantly standardised online survey, supplemented by several open-ended questions. The survey targeted adults who were working in emergency and acute medicine in German-speaking countries or who were undergoing relevant training or studying medicine. The present evaluation was purely descriptive.
resultsA total of 1,910 evaluable questionnaires were analysed. This constitutes one of the largest published datasets to date on the use of FOAM. Recruitment was conducted primarily via FOAM-related platforms and social media. Among the participants, 1,731 (90.6%) stated that they currently use FOAM. The majority of FOAM users were between 31 and 40 years old; 51% were physicians and approximately 40% were paramedics or nurses. FOAM was predominantly used regularly and was considered by the vast majority to be understandable, effective and helpful for training and continuing professional development. A high proportion of users reported that, in their own estimation, FOAM content influenced or changed their clinical decisions and was perceived to improve patient care. Moreover, approximately half of those surveyed were critical of the variable quality of the content and the lack of traditional peer review processes. Only a minority made use of interactivity in the sense of active exchange within the FOAM community.
conclusionFOAM represents a relevant and established resource for education, training and continuing professional development in this cohort of the emergency medical community in German-speaking countries. Its high subjective relevance underscores the importance of freely accessible digital educational offerings, while interpretation beyond this cohort should be made with caution. Future research should focus in particular on quality standards, content sustainability and the objectifiable effects of FOAM on clinical 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.