| Title |
Effective learning environments – the process of creating and maintaining an online continuing education tool
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Advances in Medical Education and Practice, June 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/amep.s136348 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sharon Davies, Gianni Roberto Lorello, Kristi Downey, Zeev Friedman |
| Abstract |
Continuing medical education (CME) is an indispensable part of maintaining physicians' competency. Since attending conferences requires clinical absenteeism and is not universally available, online learning has become popular. The purpose of this study is to conduct a retrospective analysis examining the creation process of an anesthesia website for adherence to the published guidelines and, in turn, provide an illustration of developing accredited online CME. Using Kern's guide to curriculum development, our website analysis confirmed each of the six steps was met. As well, the technical design features are consistent with the published literature on efficient online educational courses. Analysis of the database from 3937 modules and 1628 site evaluations reveals the site is being used extensively and is effective as demonstrated by the participants' examination results, content evaluations and reports of improvements in patient management. Utilizing technology to enable distant learning has become a priority for many educators. When creating accredited online CME programs, course developers should understand the educational principles and technical design characteristics that foster effective online programs. This study provides an illustration of incorporating these features. It also demonstrates significant participation in online CME by anesthesiologists and highlights the need for more accredited programs. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 37 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 16% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 14% |
| Lecturer | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 22% |
| Unknown | 7 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 24% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 16% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 7 | 19% |
| Unknown | 9 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 July 2017.
All research outputs
#20,963,058
of 25,748,735 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Medical Education and Practice
#1
of 1 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#255,839
of 331,548 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in Medical Education and Practice
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,748,735 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 0.5. This one scored the same or higher as 0 of them.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,548 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them