Kamalanathan Harish, Hains Lewis, Bacchi Stephen, Martin Wrivu N, Zaka Ammar, Slattery Flynn, Kovoor Joshua G, Gupta Aashray K, Psaltis Peter, Kovoor Pramesh
Department of Cardiology, Gold Coast University Hospital, Southport, QLD, Australia.
Department of Research, School of Medicine, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Front Med (Lausanne). 2024 Jul 15;11:1278449. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2024.1278449. eCollection 2024.
Podcasts are an increasingly popular medium for medical education in the field of cardiology. However, evidence suggests that the quality of the information presented can be variable. The aim of our study was to assess the quality of the most popular cardiology podcasts on existing podcast streaming services, using tools designed to grade online medical education.
We analyzed the five most recent episodes from 28 different popular cardiology podcasts as of 20th of September, 2022 using the validated rMETRIQ and JAMA scoring tools. The median podcast length was 20 min and most episodes were hosted by professors, subspecialty discussants or consultant physicians (87.14%). Although most episodes had only essential content (85%), only a small proportion of episodes provided detailed references (12.9%), explicitly identified conflicts of interest (30.7%), described a review process (13.6%), or provided a robust discussion of the podcast's content (13.6%). We observed no consistent relationship between episode length, seniority of host or seniority of guest speaker with rMETRIQ or JAMA scores.
Cardiology podcasts are a valuable remote learning tool for clinicians. However, the reliability, relevance, and transparency of information provided on cardiology podcasts varies widely. Streamlined standards for evaluation are needed to improve podcast quality.
播客在心脏病学领域已成为一种越来越受欢迎的医学教育媒介。然而，有证据表明所呈现信息的质量参差不齐。我们研究的目的是使用旨在对在线医学教育进行评分的工具，评估现有播客流媒体服务上最受欢迎的心脏病学播客的质量。
我们使用经过验证的rMETRIQ和《美国医学会杂志》评分工具，分析了截至2022年9月20日的28个不同的热门心脏病学播客的最近五集节目。播客的中位数时长为20分钟，大多数节目由教授、专科讨论者或顾问医师主持（87.14%）。虽然大多数节目只有基本内容（85%），但只有一小部分节目提供了详细参考文献（12.9%），明确指出了利益冲突（30.7%），描述了审查过程（13.6%），或对播客内容进行了深入讨论（13.6%）。我们观察到节目时长、主持人资历或嘉宾演讲者资历与rMETRIQ或《美国医学会杂志》评分之间没有一致的关系。
心脏病学播客是临床医生宝贵的远程学习工具。然而，心脏病学播客提供的信息的可靠性、相关性和透明度差异很大。需要简化评估标准以提高播客质量。
