ArticleSpartan medical research journal2026
Perceptions of medical faculty on an e-learning module providing faculty development.
Article in Spartan medical research journal, 2026. 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.
- Advancing Clinical Judgment Through Innovation and Lifelong Learning.Spartan medical research journal · 2026Article
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
introductionAlthough medical educators participate in faculty development, they do not always find this education time well spent, or helpful for improving their practice. This mixed-methods randomized comparative study aimed to compare perceptions of two faculty development modalities by comparing a traditional method of learning (text-based PDF with information) with an online learning method (e-learning module).
methodsIn December of 2021, an instructionally designed e-learning module (experimental) and a text-only PDF with the same information (control) were randomly assigned to 48 faculty via Qualtrics randomizer feature, with no investigator involvement in the assignment, in four medical specialties at a medium-sized Midwest academic medical institution. Questionnaires were distributed to all faculty, pre-exercise, to gather demographics, previous faculty development experience, and responses to a practice exercise. Faculty were then provided with their randomly assigned faculty development task to complete and a post-exercise survey to discover which modality was assigned and gather their perceptions of the usefulness of the delivery method. Six (12.5%) volunteers offered to discuss the two modalities in a focus group. 29 (60.4%) of the 48 faculty completed the pre-survey, educational exercise, and post-survey. Quantitative and qualitative data were triangulated.
resultsIndependent samples t-tests of Likert-style survey results of faculty perceptions about the e-learning module versus the text-based PDF showed no significant difference. Thematic analysis of open-ended survey responses revealed a preference for the e-learning module when learning, and the text-based PDF for reference post-learning. Finally, a focus group revealed that providing tools through both the text-only PDF and the e-learning module was preferred over only providing one or the other.
conclusionsWhile the purpose of the study was to determine which modality was more useful, the statistical comparisons were exploratory and underpowered. Still, results suggest that medical educators may find this approach beneficial for other types of education when designing online faculty development.
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.