Measuring continuing medical education conference impact and attendee experience: a scoping review.

IF 1.6 Q2 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Lisa Albrecht, Misty Pratt, Rhiannon Ng, Jeremy Olivier, Margaret Sampson, Neal Fahey, Jess Gibson, Anna-Theresa Lobos, Katie O'Hearn, Dennis Newhook, Stephanie Sutherland, Dayre McNally
{"title":"Measuring continuing medical education conference impact and attendee experience: a scoping review.","authors":"Lisa Albrecht, Misty Pratt, Rhiannon Ng, Jeremy Olivier, Margaret Sampson, Neal Fahey, Jess Gibson, Anna-Theresa Lobos, Katie O'Hearn, Dennis Newhook, Stephanie Sutherland, Dayre McNally","doi":"10.5116/ijme.65cc.8c88","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The aim was to comprehensively identify published research evaluating continuing medical education conferences, to search for validated tools and perform a content analysis to identify the relevant domains for conference evaluation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used scoping review methodology and searched MEDLINE® for relevant English or French literature published between 2008 and 2022 (last search June 3, 2022). Original research (including randomized controlled trials, non-randomized studies, cohort, mixed-methods, qualitative studies, and editorial pieces) where investigators described impact, experience, or motivations related to conference attendance were eligible. Citations were assessed in triplicate, and data extracted in duplicate.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eighty-three studies were included, 69 (83%) of which were surveys or interview based, with the majority conducted at the end of or following conference conclusion. Of the 74 tools identified, only one was validated and was narrowly focused on a specific conference component. A total of 620 items were extracted and categorized into 4 a priori suggested domains (engagement-networking, education-learning, impact, scholarship), and an additional 4 identified through content analysis (value-satisfaction, logistics, equity-diversity-inclusivity, career influences). Time trends were evident, including the absence of items related to equity-diversity-inclusivity prior to 2019, and a focus on logistics, particularly technology and virtual conferences, since 2020.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study identified 8 major domains relevant for continuing medical education conference evaluation. This work is of immediate value to individuals and organizations seeking to either design or evaluate a conference and represents a critical step in the development of a standardized tool for conference evaluation.</p>","PeriodicalId":14029,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Medical Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11285031/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Medical Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.65cc.8c88","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: The aim was to comprehensively identify published research evaluating continuing medical education conferences, to search for validated tools and perform a content analysis to identify the relevant domains for conference evaluation.

Methods: We used scoping review methodology and searched MEDLINE® for relevant English or French literature published between 2008 and 2022 (last search June 3, 2022). Original research (including randomized controlled trials, non-randomized studies, cohort, mixed-methods, qualitative studies, and editorial pieces) where investigators described impact, experience, or motivations related to conference attendance were eligible. Citations were assessed in triplicate, and data extracted in duplicate.

Results: Eighty-three studies were included, 69 (83%) of which were surveys or interview based, with the majority conducted at the end of or following conference conclusion. Of the 74 tools identified, only one was validated and was narrowly focused on a specific conference component. A total of 620 items were extracted and categorized into 4 a priori suggested domains (engagement-networking, education-learning, impact, scholarship), and an additional 4 identified through content analysis (value-satisfaction, logistics, equity-diversity-inclusivity, career influences). Time trends were evident, including the absence of items related to equity-diversity-inclusivity prior to 2019, and a focus on logistics, particularly technology and virtual conferences, since 2020.

Conclusions: This study identified 8 major domains relevant for continuing medical education conference evaluation. This work is of immediate value to individuals and organizations seeking to either design or evaluate a conference and represents a critical step in the development of a standardized tool for conference evaluation.

衡量继续医学教育会议的影响和与会者的体验:范围审查。
目的目的是全面确定已发表的对继续医学教育会议进行评估的研究,搜索有效工具并进行内容分析,以确定会议评估的相关领域:我们采用了范围界定综述方法,在 MEDLINE® 中检索了 2008 年至 2022 年间发表的相关英文或法文文献(最后一次检索是 2022 年 6 月 3 日)。符合条件的原始研究(包括随机对照试验、非随机研究、队列研究、混合方法研究、定性研究和社论文章)的调查者描述了与参加会议相关的影响、经验或动机。引文一式三份,数据提取一式两份:结果:共纳入 83 项研究,其中 69 项(83%)以调查或访谈为基础,大部分在会议结束时或结束后进行。在已确定的 74 种工具中,只有一种经过验证,且仅针对会议的特定部分。共提取了 620 个项目,并将其归类为 4 个先验建议的领域(参与-联网、教育-学习、影响、学术),以及通过内容分析确定的另外 4 个领域(价值-满意度、后勤、公平-多样性-包容性、职业影响)。时间趋势很明显,包括在 2019 年之前没有与公平-多样性-包容性相关的项目,自 2020 年以来侧重于后勤,特别是技术和虚拟会议:本研究确定了与继续医学教育会议评估相关的 8 个主要领域。这项工作对寻求设计或评估会议的个人和组织具有直接价值,是开发会议评估标准化工具的关键一步。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
International Journal of Medical Education
International Journal of Medical Education EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES-
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
3.20%
发文量
38
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信