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":"衡量继续医学教育会议的影响和与会者的体验:范围审查。","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":"15 ","pages":"15-33"},"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":"{\"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\":\"15 \",\"pages\":\"15-33\"},\"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}","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}
Measuring continuing medical education conference impact and attendee experience: a scoping review.
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.