EVALUATING NEUROLOGY CME IN TWO EDUCATIONAL METHODS USING PATTON’S UTILIZATION FOCUSED MODEL

Authors

  • Farhan Vakani
  • Amina Ahmad
  • Aziz Sonawalla
  • Mughis Sheerani

Abstract

Background: Generally in continuing education medical education (CME) the most time is consumed for in the planning and preparation of the event. This planning and preparation, however, needs recognition through an evaluative process. The purpose of this study was to evaluate neurology CME in two educational methods, lecture vs task-based learning, using Patton’s utilisation focused model. Methods: This was an observational, cross-sectional inquiry. The questionnaire evaluated the educational elements such as learning objectives met, content covered, presentations at the level of understanding, level of interaction, knowledge gained, time management, queries responded, organisation, quality of learning material and overall grading of the educational event. General Practitioners were the key participants in this evaluation and consisted of 60 self-selected physicians distributed equally in both the TBL and lecture groups. Patton’s utilization focused model was used to produce findings for effective decision making. The data were analysed using Mann-Whitney U test to know the value of the learning method that satisfied the most participants. Results: A total of 58 evaluations were returned, 29 from the TBL group and 29 from the lecture. The analysis of the elements showed higher mean ranks for TBL method ranging between 32.2 and 38.4 versus lecture (20.6–26.8). Most of the elements assessed were statistically significant (p>0.05), except time management (p=0.22). However, elements as ‘objectives of the activity met’ (p=0.07), ‘overall grading of the event’ (p=0.06) and ‘presentations at the level of understanding’ (p=0.06) were at border line. Of the 29 respondents in the TBL group, 75% rated all the elements of the program above very good. In the lecture group, 22 (75%) respondents out of 29 rated almost half of the elements above very good. Conclusion: Majority of respondents in the TBL group rated all program elements as exceptional compared to the lecture group in which only half of the elements were rated above very good. Task-based learning method made the most impact on participants’ satisfaction.Keywords: Evaluation, Management-oriented, Task-based learning, Lecture

References

Goldie J. AMEE Education Guide No. 29: Evaluating educational programmes. Med Teach 2006;28(3):210–24.

Blumberg P, Deveau EJ. Using a practical program evaluation model to chart the outcomes of an educational initiative: problem-based learning. Med Teach 1995;17(2):205–14.

Wood TJ, Marks M, Jabbour M. The development of a participant questionnaire to assess continuing medical education presentations. Med Educ 2005;39(6):568–72.

Jayawickramarajah PT. How to evaluate educational programmes in the health professions. Medical Teacher, 1992;14(2–3):159–66.

Spratt CR. Walker R, Robinson B. Practitioner Research and Evaluation Skills Training (PREST) in open and distance learning: Module A5: Mixed research methods. Commonwealth of Learning; 2004.

Worthen BR, Sanders JR, Fitzpatrick JL. Program evaluation. 3rd ed. Bostan: Pearson Education Inc; 2004.

Burford B, Hesketh A, Wakeling J, Bagnall G, Colthart I, Illing J, et al. Asking the right questions and getting meaningful responses: 12 tips on developing and administering a questionnaire survey for healthcare professionals. Med Teach 2009;31(3):207–11.

Published

2013-06-01

Issue

Vol. 25 No. 1-2 (2013): JOURNAL OF AYUB MEDICAL COLLEGE, ABBOTTABAD

Section

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

License

Journal of Ayub Medical College, Abbottabad is an OPEN ACCESS JOURNAL which means that all content is FREELY available without charge to all users whether registered with the journal or not. The work published by J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad is licensed and distributed under the creative commons License  CC BY ND Attribution-NoDerivs. Material printed in this journal is OPEN to access, and are FREE for use in academic and research work with proper citation. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad accepts only original material for publication with the understanding that except for abstracts, no part of the data has been published or will be submitted for publication elsewhere before appearing in J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. The Editorial Board of J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad makes every effort to ensure the accuracy and authenticity of material printed in J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. However, conclusions and statements expressed are views of the authors and do not reflect the opinion/policy of J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad or the Editorial Board.

USERS are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This is in accordance with the BOAI definition of open access.

AUTHORS retain the rights of free downloading/unlimited e-print of full text and sharing/disseminating the article without any restriction, by any means including twitter, scholarly collaboration networks such as ResearchGate, Academia.eu, and social media sites such as Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Scholar and any other professional or academic networking site.