Optimizing the Effectiveness of CME Program: NAMS Experience
Le résumé fourni par la source
NAMS ExperiencePlanning organisation and delivery of educational program(s), culminating in purposeful learning require strong basis of principles of adult learning along with a sound knowledge and requisite skills in both psychology as well as technology of medical education.Assessing effectiveness of a CME program is as important as the organization of learning activities and delivery of academic program as these may provide further directions for enhancing the efficacy of the CME delivery system.Objective: (i) The purpose of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of well planned and conducted CME program in terms of enhancing knowledge and competence of the participants.(ii) To explore if the gain in knowledge and competence, if any, can be attributed to the interactive design of the educational process.Methods: The study was conducted during NAMS-AIIMS Regional Symposium on Sleep Medicine at AIIMS, Jodhpur as part of NAMSCON 2013.After explaining the objectives of the study to the participants and assurance of confidentiality, a validated and pre-tested questionnaire consisting of 30 multiple choice, single response questions, was administered to 103 participants.Following intervention consisting of didactic lectures by experts in different aspects of sleep medicine, interactive sessions and problem triggered sessions consisting of clinical data, participants were readministered post test questions which were, however, different from pre-test but had similar difficulty level.Result: The response rate of participants was 89%.Pre-intervention scores were 11.76 ± 4.4, with only 26 % of participants achieving an arbitrary pass score of 50 %.Comparison of paired score of participants who attempted both pre and post tests (n=59) showed improvement from 12.1 ±4.6 to 18.3 ± 3.8 which was significant (p <0.05).84.7 % of participants secured above pre decided 50% score.The mean increase in the score was 6.2 with 95% CIs 4.8; 7.5 (P <0.001).Higher gain in
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.