Free Open Access Medical Education (FOAM) in emergency medicine: use and perceived clinical relevance from a large cross-sectional survey

Résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: Free Open Access Medical Education (FOAM) refers to freely accessible digital educational resources that are increasingly being used for training, continuing education and professional development, particularly in emergency medicine. While FOAM is well established internationally, there are limited data on its use, motives and perceived relevance in German-speaking countries, with multiprofessional perspectives being underrepresented both regionally and internationally. METHODS: The aim of this study was to record usage patterns, sociodemographic characteristics and subjective perceptions of the benefits, limitations and didactic significance of FOAM in German-speaking countries, with a focus on emergency medicine. An exploratory, descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted using a predominantly standardised online survey, supplemented by several open-ended questions. The survey targeted adults who were working in emergency and acute medicine in German-speaking countries or who were undergoing relevant training or studying medicine. The present evaluation was purely descriptive. RESULTS: A total of 1,910 evaluable questionnaires were analysed. This constitutes one of the largest published datasets to date on the use of FOAM. Recruitment was conducted primarily via FOAM-related platforms and social media. Among the participants, 1,731 (90.6%) stated that they currently use FOAM. The majority of FOAM users were between 31 and 40 years old; 51% were physicians and approximately 40% were paramedics or nurses. FOAM was predominantly used regularly and was considered by the vast majority to be understandable, effective and helpful for training and continuing professional development. A high proportion of users reported that, in their own estimation, FOAM content influenced or changed their clinical decisions and was perceived to improve patient care. Moreover, approximately half of those surveyed were critical of the variable quality of the content and the lack of traditional peer review processes. Only a minority made use of interactivity in the sense of active exchange within the FOAM community. CONCLUSION: FOAM represents a relevant and established resource for education, training and continuing professional development in this cohort of the emergency medical community in German-speaking countries. Its high subjective relevance underscores the importance of freely accessible digital educational offerings, while interpretation beyond this cohort should be made with caution. Future research should focus in particular on quality standards, content sustainability and the objectifiable effects of FOAM on clinical outcomes.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.