PubMed · 10558065
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
J McAvoy. 1999. Make a difference with CRM (Customer Relationship Management) solutions.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10558065/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
BACKGROUND: Continuing medical education (CME) for general practitioners relies on specialist-based teaching methods in many settings. Formal lectures by specialists may not meet the learning needs of practitioners and may cause dissatisfaction with traditional CME. Increasing learner involvement in teaching programs may improve learner satisfaction. METHODS: A quality improvement program for CME for 18 general practitioners in the Tel Aviv region was designed as a result of dissatisfaction with traditional CME activities. A two-step strategy for change was developed. The CME participants first selected the study topics relevant to them from a needs assessment and prepared background material on the topics. In the second step, specialist teachers were invited to answer questions arising from the preparation of selected topics. Satisfaction with the traditional lecture program and the new participatory program were assessed by a questionnaire. The quality criteria included the relevance, importance and applicability of the CME topic chosen to the participant's practice, the clarity of the presentation and the effective use of teaching aids by the lecturer and the potential of the lecturer to serve as a consultant to the participant. RESULTS: The participatory model of CME significantly increased satisfaction with relevance, applicability and interest in CME topics compared to the traditional lecture format. CONCLUSIONS: Increased learner participation in the selection and preparation of CME topics, and increased interaction between CME teachers and learners results in increased satisfaction with teaching programs. Future study of the effect of this model on physician performance is required.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
CONTEXT: To compare the quality, presentation, readability, and clinical relevance of review articles published in peer-reviewed and "throwaway" journals. METHODS: We reviewed articles that focused on the diagnosis or treatment of a medical condition published between January 1 and December 31, 1998, in the 5 leading peer-reviewed general medical journals and high-circulation throwaway journals. Reviewers independently assessed the methodologic and reporting quality, and evaluated each article's presentation and readability. Clinical relevance was evaluated independently by 6 physicians. RESULTS: Of the 394 articles in our sample, 16 (4.1%) were peer-reviewed systematic reviews, 135 (34.3%) were peer-reviewed nonsystematic reviews, and 243 (61.7%) were nonsystematic reviews published in throwaway journals. The mean (SD) quality scores were highest for peer-reviewed articles (0.94 [0.09] for systematic reviews and 0.30 [0.19] for nonsystematic reviews) compared with throwaway journal articles (0.23 [0.03], F(2,391) = 280.8, P<.001). Throwaway journal articles used more tables (P =.02), figures (P =.01), photographs (P<.001), color (P<.001), and larger font sizes (P<.001) compared with peer-reviewed articles. Readability scores were more often in the college or higher range for peer-reviewed journals compared with the throwaway journal articles (104 [77.0%] vs 156 [64.2%]; P =.01). Peer-reviewed article titles were judged less relevant to clinical practice than throwaway journal article titles (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Although lower in methodologic and reporting quality, review articles published in throwaway journals have characteristics that appeal to physician readers.