Ifediora Chris O
Senior Lecturer, Clinical Skills, School of Medicine, Griffith University, Southport, QLD, Australia.
J Med Educ Curric Dev. 2019 Feb 13;6:2382120519827912. doi: 10.1177/2382120519827912. eCollection 2019 Jan-Dec.
Online education options increasingly complement traditional face-to-face (F2F) approaches. Few studies have compared both formats on doctors, and little evidence exists to prove that the online approach is universally effective. This gap needs to be addressed to ensure that the quality of education and health care delivery is not compromised.
A quantitative survey targeting 881 doctors that required online and F2F teaching sessions offers identical contents over a 12-month period. The surveyed doctors work in the Australian after-hours house-call (AHHC) industry, and the teachings were parts of their continuing professional development activities.
In all, 89 responses were received; 10 (11.2%) participated exclusively online, while 23 (25.8%) did so by F2F; 52 (58.4%) engaged through both modalities. No statistical differences existed based on sex, specialty, and post-graduate fellowship status, as well as on the perceptions with teaching structure, contents, and duration of the education programmes. However, F2F-only doctors were likely to be junior and younger than 40 years (odds ratio [OR]: 3.85; = .01). They also admit easy access to effective teaching environment (OR: 4.07; = .01) and receive better feedbacks (OR: 3.75; = .01). Conversely, online-only participants were more likely to combine AHHC duties with regular-hours general practice (OR: 0.15; = .02) and are generally more satisfied with the programme frequency (OR: 6.90; = .01).
On multiple areas, no differences exist in the medical education delivered by online and the F2F methods to doctors and both should be encouraged. However, younger and junior practitioners, who tend to need feedbacks on their jobs, should participate more in the F2F sessions.
在线教育选项越来越多地补充传统的面对面（F2F）教学方法。很少有研究比较这两种教学形式对医生的影响，而且几乎没有证据证明在线教学方法普遍有效。需要弥补这一差距，以确保教育质量和医疗服务不受影响。
对881名医生进行定量调查，要求在线教学和面对面教学在12个月内提供相同的内容。参与调查的医生在澳大利亚非工作时间上门医疗（AHHC）行业工作，这些教学是他们继续职业发展活动的一部分。
共收到89份回复；10人（11.2%）仅在线参与，23人（25.8%）通过面对面参与；52人（58.4%）通过两种方式参与。在性别、专业、研究生奖学金状态以及对教学结构、内容和教育项目时长的看法方面，不存在统计学差异。然而，仅参加面对面教学的医生可能更年轻且不到40岁（优势比[OR]：3.85；P = 0.01）。他们还承认容易获得有效的教学环境（OR：4.07；P = 0.01）并得到更好的反馈（OR：3.75；P = 0.01）。相反，仅在线参与者更有可能将AHHC职责与正常工作时间的全科医疗相结合（OR：0.15；P = 0.02），并且总体上对课程频率更满意（OR：6.90；P = 0.01）。
在多个方面，在线教学和面对面教学对医生进行医学教育不存在差异，两种方式都应得到鼓励。然而，年轻和初级从业者往往需要工作反馈，应更多地参与面对面教学课程。
