Division of General Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Department of Medical Education, University of Illinois College of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Med Educ. 2023 Apr;57(4):349-358. doi: 10.1111/medu.14996. Epub 2022 Dec 12.
Engaging learners in continuing medical education (CME) is challenging. Recently, CME courses have transitioned to livestreamed CME, with learners viewing live, in-person courses online. The authors aimed to (1) compare learner engagement and teaching effectiveness in livestreamed with in-person CME and (2) determine how livestream engagement and teaching effectiveness is associated with (A) interactivity metrics, (B) presentation characteristics and (C) medical knowledge.
A 3-year, non-randomised study of in-person and livestream CME was performed. The course was in-person for 2018 but transitioned to livestream for 2020 and 2021. Learners completed the Learner Engagement Inventory and Teaching Effectiveness Instrument after each presentation. Both instruments were supported by content, internal structure and relations to other variables' validity evidence. Interactivity metrics included learner use of audience response, questions asked by learners and presentation views. Presentation characteristics included presentations using audience response, using pre/post-test format, time of day and words per slide. Medical knowledge was assessed by audience response. A repeated measures analysis of variance (anova) was used for comparisons and a mixed model approach for correlations.
A total of 159 learners (response rate 27%) completed questionnaires. Engagement did not significantly differ between in-person or livestream CME. (4.56 versus 4.53, p = 0.64, maximum 5 = highly engaged). However, teacher effectiveness scores were higher for in-person compared with livestream (4.77 versus 4.71 p = 0.01, maximum 5 = highly effective). For livestreamed courses, learner engagement was associated with presentation characteristics, including presentation using of audience response (yes = 4.57, no = 4.45, p < .0001), use of a pre/post-test (yes = 4.62, no = 4.54, p < .0001) and time of presentation (morning = 4.58, afternoon = 4.53, p = .0002). Significant associations were not seen for interactivity metrics or medical knowledge.
Livestreaming may be as engaging as in-person CME. Although teaching effectiveness in livestreaming was lower, this difference was small. CME course planners should consider offering livestream CME while exploring strategies to enhance teaching effectiveness in livestreamed settings.
吸引学习者参与继续医学教育（CME）具有挑战性。最近，CME 课程已经过渡到直播 CME，学习者可以在线观看现场直播课程。作者旨在：(1) 比较直播和现场 CME 中的学习者参与度和教学效果；(2) 确定直播参与度和教学效果与 (A) 互动性指标、(B) 演示特性和 (C) 医学知识的关联程度。
对现场和直播 CME 进行了为期 3 年的非随机研究。该课程在 2018 年为现场课程，但在 2020 年和 2021 年过渡到直播课程。学习者在每次演示后完成学习者参与度清单和教学效果工具。两个工具都得到了内容、内部结构和与其他变量关系的有效性证据的支持。互动性指标包括学习者使用观众响应、学习者提出的问题和演示视图。演示特性包括使用观众响应、使用前/后测试格式、时间和每张幻灯片的字数。医学知识通过观众响应进行评估。采用重复测量方差分析（anova）进行比较，采用混合模型方法进行相关性分析。
共有 159 名学习者（回复率 27%）完成了问卷调查。现场或直播 CME 之间的参与度没有显著差异。（4.56 与 4.53，p=0.64，最大值 5=高度参与）。然而，与直播相比，现场课程的教师效能评分更高（4.77 与 4.71，p=0.01，最大值 5=非常有效）。对于直播课程，学习者参与度与演示特性相关，包括使用观众响应（是=4.57，否=4.45，p<0.0001）、使用前/后测试（是=4.62，否=4.54，p<0.0001）和演示时间（上午=4.58，下午=4.53，p=0.0002）。未观察到与互动性指标或医学知识的显著关联。
直播可能与现场 CME 一样具有吸引力。尽管直播的教学效果较低，但这种差异很小。CME 课程规划者在探索增强直播环境中教学效果的策略时，应考虑提供直播 CME。
