首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>other >Comparative Analysis of Junior and Senior Clinician Educator Evaluation of Relevant Articles Within Medical Education
【2h】

Comparative Analysis of Junior and Senior Clinician Educator Evaluation of Relevant Articles Within Medical Education

机译:医学教育中相关文章初高级临床医生评价的比较分析

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

IntroductionIt may be difficult for junior clinician educators (JCEs) to get a grasp of pertinent literature and determine which are most relevant to their learning, due to limited experience and lack of formalized system to rank all available resources with respect to their value for JCEs. Our study aimed to identify whether senior clinician educators (SCEs) and JCEs differ in their selection of what they perceive as key medical education articles.MethodsAs a part of the Academic Life in Emergency Medicine (ALiEM) Faculty Incubator program, we developed a series of primer articles for JCEs by identifying and discussing key articles within specific medical education arenas, which were designed to enhance the reader's educational growth. Each set of articles within the primer series were selected based on data collected from JCEs and SCEs, who ranked the specific articles with respect to their perceived relevancy to the JCEs. ANOVA analysis was performed for each of the series to determine whether there was a statistically significant difference between JCE and SCE rating of articles.ResultsTwo-hundred-and-sixteen total articles were evaluated within the nine primer topics. No statistically significant difference was found between the rankings of papers by JCEs and SCEs (effect size: 0.06; 95% CI: -0.27 to 0.40). However, a subgroup analysis of the data found that three of the nine primers showed statistically significant divergence based on seniority (p < 0.05).ConclusionsBased on the data, the involvement of JCEs in the consensus-building process was important in identifying divergence in views between JCEs and SCEs in one-third of cases. Our findings suggest that it is important to involve JCEs in selecting articles that are worthwhile for their learning, since SCEs may not fully understand their needs.
机译:简介由于经验有限且缺乏形式化的系统来根据JCE的价值对所有可用资源进行排名,因此初级临床教育工作者(JCE)可能难以掌握相关文献并确定与他们的学习最相关的文献。我们的研究旨在确定高级临床医学教育者(SCE)和JCE在选择他们认为是关键医学教育文章方面是否有所不同。方法作为急诊医学(ALiEM)学院孵化器计划的一部分,我们开发了一系列通过识别和讨论特定医学教育领域中的关键文章来为JCE撰写入门文章,这些文章旨在增强读者的教育发展。引物系列中的每组文章都是根据从JCE和SCE收集的数据进行选择的,这些数据对特定文章与JCE的相关性进行了排名。对每个系列进行了方差分析,以确定文章的JCE和SCE评分之间是否存在统计学上的显着差异。结果在9个引物主题中评估了261篇文章。在JCE和SCE的论文排名之间没有发现统计学上的显着差异(效果大小:0.06; 95%CI:-0.27至0.40)。然而,对数据进行的亚组分析发现,九种引物中的三种基于资历显示出统计学上的显着差异(p <0.05)。结论基于这些数据,JCEs在共识建立过程中的参与对于识别观点差异非常重要。在三分之一的案例中,JCE和SCE之间的差异很大。我们的发现表明,重要的是让JCE参与选择值得他们学习的文章,因为SCE可能无法完全理解他们的需求。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号