Analysis of Longitudinal Assessment: Role of Radiology Online Longitudinal Assessment–Type Questions

IF 4 3区 医学 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
{"title":"Analysis of Longitudinal Assessment: Role of Radiology Online Longitudinal Assessment–Type Questions","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.jacr.2024.03.011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>The purpose of this investigation was to assess gaps in radiologists’ medical knowledge using abdominal subspecialty online longitudinal assessment (OLA)-type questions. Secondarily, we evaluated what question-centric factors influenced radiologists to pursue self-directed additional reading on topics presented.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A prospective OLA-type test was distributed nationally to radiologists over a 4-month period. Questions were divided into multiple groupings, including arising from three different time periods of literature (≤5 years, 6-15 years, and &gt;20 years), relating to common versus uncommon modalities, and guideline-based versus knowledge-based characterization. After each question, participants rated their confidence in diagnosis and perceived question relevance. Answers were provided, and links to answer explanations and references were provided and tracked. A series of regression models were used to test potential predictors of correct response, participant confidence, and perceived question relevance.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>In all, 119 participants initiated the survey, with 100 answering at least one of the questions. Participants had significantly lower perceived relevance (mean: 51.3, 59.2, and 62.1 for topics ≤5 years old, 6-15 years old, and &gt;20 years old, respectively; <em>P</em> &lt; .001) and confidence (mean: 48.4, 57.8, and 63.4, respectively; <em>P</em> &lt; .001) with questions on newer literature compared with older literature. Participants were significantly more likely to read question explanations for questions on common modalities compared with uncommon (46% versus 40%; <em>P</em> = .005) and on guideline-based questions compared with knowledge-based questions (49% versus 43%; <em>P</em> = .01).</p></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><p>OLA-type questions function by identifying areas in which radiologists lack knowledge or confidence and highlight areas in which participants have interest in further education.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":49044,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American College of Radiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1546144024002990/pdfft?md5=8f26f794530433dc37b4c180a7e4d2da&pid=1-s2.0-S1546144024002990-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American College of Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1546144024002990","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

The purpose of this investigation was to assess gaps in radiologists’ medical knowledge using abdominal subspecialty online longitudinal assessment (OLA)-type questions. Secondarily, we evaluated what question-centric factors influenced radiologists to pursue self-directed additional reading on topics presented.

Methods

A prospective OLA-type test was distributed nationally to radiologists over a 4-month period. Questions were divided into multiple groupings, including arising from three different time periods of literature (≤5 years, 6-15 years, and >20 years), relating to common versus uncommon modalities, and guideline-based versus knowledge-based characterization. After each question, participants rated their confidence in diagnosis and perceived question relevance. Answers were provided, and links to answer explanations and references were provided and tracked. A series of regression models were used to test potential predictors of correct response, participant confidence, and perceived question relevance.

Results

In all, 119 participants initiated the survey, with 100 answering at least one of the questions. Participants had significantly lower perceived relevance (mean: 51.3, 59.2, and 62.1 for topics ≤5 years old, 6-15 years old, and >20 years old, respectively; P < .001) and confidence (mean: 48.4, 57.8, and 63.4, respectively; P < .001) with questions on newer literature compared with older literature. Participants were significantly more likely to read question explanations for questions on common modalities compared with uncommon (46% versus 40%; P = .005) and on guideline-based questions compared with knowledge-based questions (49% versus 43%; P = .01).

Discussion

OLA-type questions function by identifying areas in which radiologists lack knowledge or confidence and highlight areas in which participants have interest in further education.

纵向评估分析:放射学 OLA 类型问题的作用。
目的:这项调查的目的是利用腹部亚专业在线纵向评估(OLA)类型的问题来评估放射科医生在医学知识方面的差距。其次,我们还评估了哪些以问题为中心的因素会影响放射科医生对所提出的问题进行自主补充阅读:方法:在四个月的时间里,我们在全国范围内向放射科医生分发了一份前瞻性 OLA 类型的测试。问题分为多个组别,包括来自三个不同时期的文献(≤ 5 年、6-15 年和 > 20 年)、与常见和不常见模式相关的问题,以及基于指南和基于知识的特征描述。每个问题结束后,参与者都会对自己的诊断信心和认为问题的相关性进行评分。提供了答案,并提供和跟踪了答案解释和参考文献的链接。我们使用了一系列回归模型来测试正确回答、参与者信心和感知问题相关性的潜在预测因素:119 名参与者发起了调查,其中 100 人至少回答了一个问题。参与者对问题相关性的感知明显较低(平均值为 51.3、59.2、59.2、51.3、51.3、59.2、59.2):平均值:≤5 岁、6-15 岁和大于 20 岁的题目分别为 51.3、59.2 和 62.1;p 讨论:OLA类问题的作用是找出放射科医生缺乏知识或信心的领域,并强调参与者有兴趣接受进一步教育的领域。
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
Journal of the American College of Radiology
Journal of the American College of Radiology RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING-
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
8.90%
发文量
312
审稿时长
34 days
期刊介绍: The official journal of the American College of Radiology, JACR informs its readers of timely, pertinent, and important topics affecting the practice of diagnostic radiologists, interventional radiologists, medical physicists, and radiation oncologists. In so doing, JACR improves their practices and helps optimize their role in the health care system. By providing a forum for informative, well-written articles on health policy, clinical practice, practice management, data science, and education, JACR engages readers in a dialogue that ultimately benefits patient care.
×
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