倾听心脏的声音:流行心脏病学播客评析

Harish Kamalanathan, Lewis Hains, Stephen Bacchi, Wrivu N. Martin, A. Zaka, Flynn Slattery, J. Kovoor, Aashray K. Gupta, Peter Psaltis, P. Kovoor
{"title":"倾听心脏的声音:流行心脏病学播客评析","authors":"Harish Kamalanathan, Lewis Hains, Stephen Bacchi, Wrivu N. Martin, A. Zaka, Flynn Slattery, J. Kovoor, Aashray K. Gupta, Peter Psaltis, P. Kovoor","doi":"10.3389/fmed.2024.1278449","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Podcasts are an increasingly popular medium for medical education in the field of cardiology. However, evidence suggests that the quality of the information presented can be variable. The aim of our study was to assess the quality of the most popular cardiology podcasts on existing podcast streaming services, using tools designed to grade online medical education.We analyzed the five most recent episodes from 28 different popular cardiology podcasts as of 20th of September, 2022 using the validated rMETRIQ and JAMA scoring tools. The median podcast length was 20 min and most episodes were hosted by professors, subspecialty discussants or consultant physicians (87.14%). Although most episodes had only essential content (85%), only a small proportion of episodes provided detailed references (12.9%), explicitly identified conflicts of interest (30.7%), described a review process (13.6%), or provided a robust discussion of the podcast's content (13.6%). We observed no consistent relationship between episode length, seniority of host or seniority of guest speaker with rMETRIQ or JAMA scores.Cardiology podcasts are a valuable remote learning tool for clinicians. However, the reliability, relevance, and transparency of information provided on cardiology podcasts varies widely. Streamlined standards for evaluation are needed to improve podcast quality.","PeriodicalId":502302,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Medicine","volume":"105 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Listen to your heart: a critical analysis of popular cardiology podcasts\",\"authors\":\"Harish Kamalanathan, Lewis Hains, Stephen Bacchi, Wrivu N. Martin, A. Zaka, Flynn Slattery, J. Kovoor, Aashray K. Gupta, Peter Psaltis, P. Kovoor\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/fmed.2024.1278449\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Podcasts are an increasingly popular medium for medical education in the field of cardiology. However, evidence suggests that the quality of the information presented can be variable. The aim of our study was to assess the quality of the most popular cardiology podcasts on existing podcast streaming services, using tools designed to grade online medical education.We analyzed the five most recent episodes from 28 different popular cardiology podcasts as of 20th of September, 2022 using the validated rMETRIQ and JAMA scoring tools. The median podcast length was 20 min and most episodes were hosted by professors, subspecialty discussants or consultant physicians (87.14%). Although most episodes had only essential content (85%), only a small proportion of episodes provided detailed references (12.9%), explicitly identified conflicts of interest (30.7%), described a review process (13.6%), or provided a robust discussion of the podcast's content (13.6%). We observed no consistent relationship between episode length, seniority of host or seniority of guest speaker with rMETRIQ or JAMA scores.Cardiology podcasts are a valuable remote learning tool for clinicians. However, the reliability, relevance, and transparency of information provided on cardiology podcasts varies widely. Streamlined standards for evaluation are needed to improve podcast quality.\",\"PeriodicalId\":502302,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in Medicine\",\"volume\":\"105 4\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2024.1278449\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2024.1278449","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在心脏病学领域,播客是一种越来越受欢迎的医学教育媒介。然而,有证据表明,播客所提供信息的质量可能参差不齐。我们使用经过验证的 rMETRIQ 和 JAMA 评分工具,分析了截至 2022 年 9 月 20 日 28 个不同流行心脏病学播客中最近的五集。播客时长的中位数为 20 分钟,大多数播客由教授、亚专科讨论者或顾问医生主持(87.14%)。虽然大多数播客只有基本内容(85%),但只有一小部分播客提供了详细的参考文献(12.9%)、明确指出了利益冲突(30.7%)、描述了审查过程(13.6%)或对播客内容进行了深入讨论(13.6%)。我们观察到,播客集的长度、主持人的资历或嘉宾演讲者的资历与 rMETRIQ 或 JAMA 评分之间没有一致的关系。然而,心脏病学播客所提供信息的可靠性、相关性和透明度却参差不齐。需要简化评估标准以提高播客质量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Listen to your heart: a critical analysis of popular cardiology podcasts
Podcasts are an increasingly popular medium for medical education in the field of cardiology. However, evidence suggests that the quality of the information presented can be variable. The aim of our study was to assess the quality of the most popular cardiology podcasts on existing podcast streaming services, using tools designed to grade online medical education.We analyzed the five most recent episodes from 28 different popular cardiology podcasts as of 20th of September, 2022 using the validated rMETRIQ and JAMA scoring tools. The median podcast length was 20 min and most episodes were hosted by professors, subspecialty discussants or consultant physicians (87.14%). Although most episodes had only essential content (85%), only a small proportion of episodes provided detailed references (12.9%), explicitly identified conflicts of interest (30.7%), described a review process (13.6%), or provided a robust discussion of the podcast's content (13.6%). We observed no consistent relationship between episode length, seniority of host or seniority of guest speaker with rMETRIQ or JAMA scores.Cardiology podcasts are a valuable remote learning tool for clinicians. However, the reliability, relevance, and transparency of information provided on cardiology podcasts varies widely. Streamlined standards for evaluation are needed to improve podcast quality.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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