 |
|
Internet-Based Continuing Medical Education
|
|
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
|
|
To the Editor: The study of Internet-based continuing medical education (CME) by Dr Fordis and colleagues1 incorporated principles of effective instructional design in both interventions and assessed physician behaviors as an outcome in education research. Unfortunately, this article demonstrates 2 flaws commonly found in education studies, both of which lead to results that defy meaningful interpretation.
First, it is impossible to know whether the observed effect on drug prescribing is due to the live Web conference, the opportunity to revisit the Web site to reinforce learning, the ability to adjust viewing based on learning preferences, or simply the greater time invested in learning by the online group. Multifaceted educational interventions have been decried because the reader cannot determine which factors, alone or in combination, are responsible for results.2-3 Such evaluations cannot be generalized beyond the setting in which the study was conducted.
Second, media-comparative research—the comparison of one medium (eg, . . . [Full Text of this Article]
David A. Cook, MD, MHPE
cook.david33@mayo.edu
Division of General Internal Medicine
Mayo Clinic College of Medicine
Rochester, Minn
RELATED ARTICLES
Internet-Based Continuing Medical Education—Reply
Michael Fordis, Jason E. King, Christie M. Ballantyne, Peter H. Jones, Katharine H. Schneider, Stephen J. Spann, Stephen B. Greenberg, and Anthony J. Greisinger
JAMA. 2006;295(7):758-759.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Comparison of the Instructional Efficacy of Internet-Based CME With Live Interactive CME Workshops: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Michael Fordis, Jason E. King, Christie M. Ballantyne, Peter H. Jones, Katharine H. Schneider, Stephen J. Spann, Stephen B. Greenberg, and Anthony J. Greisinger
JAMA. 2005;294(9):1043-1051.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|
