Preiksaitis Carl, Nawaz Amana, Ousta Alaa, Mackey Cassandra
Department of Emergency Medicine Stanford School of Medicine Stanford California USA.
Department of Emergency Medicine Duke University School of Medicine Durham North Carolina USA.
AEM Educ Train. 2024 May 16;8(3):e10994. doi: 10.1002/aet2.10994. eCollection 2024 Jun.
Textbooks are often considered the criterion standard in medical education, but there is a growing preference for free open-access medical education (FOAM) content among learners. Despite FOAM's appeal, these resources often fall short in covering core content as comprehensively as the American Board of Emergency Medicine's 2019 Model of the Clinical Practice of Emergency Medicine (MCPEM), thereby sustaining the recommendation for textbook use. However, textbooks have limitations, such as how quickly content can become outdated. Notably, there is no evaluation of the comprehensiveness of emergency medicine (EM) textbooks in the literature.
This observational cross-sectional study compared () and () with the MCPEM subtopics. Each textbook chapter was reviewed for content alignment with MCPEM subtopics. The primary outcome was the proportion of MCPEM subtopics covered by each textbook. Secondary outcomes included the count of chapters covering each topic and their distribution relative to the core content weighting in the ABEM National Qualifying Examination (NQE).
covered 95.3% of MCPEM subtopics (837 unique subtopics), and covered 94.5% (826 unique subtopics). Both textbooks overrepresented topics like toxicology and psychobehavioral disorders compared to their weighting in the NQE. Relatively underrepresented topics included environmental disorders, cardiovascular disorders, renal and urogenital disorders, and traumatic disorders in and other core competencies and cardiovascular disorders in . The textbooks varied significantly in coverage of certain topics.
Both and comprehensively cover MCPEM subtopics, with some discrepancies in topic representation compared to the NQE. While textbooks offer depth and breadth, they may not fully align with the NQE content distribution. A diversified approach to EM education, combining traditional textbooks and FOAM resources may be required for comprehensive learning.
教科书通常被视为医学教育的标准规范,但学习者越来越倾向于免费的开放获取医学教育(FOAM)内容。尽管FOAM很有吸引力,但这些资源在全面涵盖核心内容方面往往不如美国急诊医学委员会2019年的《急诊医学临床实践模式》(MCPEM),因此仍推荐使用教科书。然而,教科书也有局限性,比如内容更新速度有多快。值得注意的是,文献中没有对急诊医学(EM)教科书的全面性进行评估。
这项观察性横断面研究将()和()与MCPEM子主题进行了比较。对每本教科书的章节进行审查,以确定其内容与MCPEM子主题的一致性。主要结果是每本教科书涵盖的MCPEM子主题的比例。次要结果包括涵盖每个主题的章节数量及其相对于美国急诊医学委员会全国资格考试(NQE)核心内容权重的分布。
涵盖了95.3%的MCPEM子主题(837个独特子主题),而涵盖了94.5%(826个独特子主题)。与它们在NQE中的权重相比,两本教科书都过度呈现了毒理学和心理行为障碍等主题。相对呈现不足的主题包括环境障碍、心血管疾病、肾脏和泌尿生殖系统疾病,以及中其他核心能力和中的心血管疾病。两本教科书在某些主题的覆盖范围上有显著差异。
和都全面涵盖了MCPEM子主题,与NQE相比,在主题呈现上存在一些差异。虽然教科书提供了深度和广度,但它们可能与NQE的内容分布不完全一致。可能需要一种将传统教科书和FOAM资源相结合的多元化急诊医学教育方法来进行全面学习。