| Title |
A Randomized Trial on the Efficacy of Mastery Learning for Primary Care Provider Melanoma Opportunistic Screening Skills and Practice
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of General Internal Medicine, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11606-018-4311-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
June K. Robinson, Namita Jain, Ashfaq A. Marghoob, William McGaghie, Michael MacLean, Pedram Gerami, Brittney Hultgren, Rob Turrisi, Kimberly Mallett, Gary J. Martin |
| Abstract |
Early detection of melanoma represents an opportunity to reduce the burden of disease among people at increased risk for melanoma. To develop and demonstrate the efficacy of online training. Randomized educational trial. Primary care providers (PCPs). Mastery learning course with visual and dermoscopic assessment, diagnosis and management, and deliberate practice with feedback to reach a minimum passing standard. Pre-test/post-test diagnostic accuracy. Referral of concerning lesions for 3 months before and after the educational intervention. Among the 89 PCPs, 89.8% were internal medicine physicians, and the remainder were physician assistants embedded in internists' practices. There were no differences between control and intervention groups regarding gender, age, race, or percentage of full-time PCPs. The control group had more PCPs who reported less than 5 years of practice (n = 18) than the intervention group (n = 6) (χ2 [6, n = 89] = 14.34, p = 0.03). PCPs in the intervention group answered more melanoma detection questions correctly on the post-test (M = 10.05, SE = 1.24) compared to control group PCPs (M = 7.11, SE = 0.24), and had fewer false-positive and no false-negative melanoma diagnoses (intervention, M = 1.09, SE = 0. 20; control, M = 3.1, SE = 0.23; ANCOVA, F[1,378] =27.86, p < 0.001; ηp2 = 0.26). PCPs who underwent training referred fewer benign lesions, including nevi, seborrheic keratoses, and dermatofibromas, than control PCPs (F[1,79] = 72.89, p < 0.001; ηp2 = 0.489; F[1,79] = 25.82, p < 0.001; ηp2 = 0.246; F[1,79] = 34.25, p < 0.001; ηp2 = 0.302; respectively). Those receiving training referred significantly more melanomas than controls (F[1,79] = 24.38, p < 0.001; ηp2 = 0.236). Referred melanomas (0.8 ± 0.07 per month for intervention, 0.17 ± 0.06 for control) were mostly located on the head and neck. Mastery learning improved PCPs' ability to detect melanoma on a standardized post-test and may improve referral of patients with suspected melanoma. Further studies are needed to confirm this finding. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02385253. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 76 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 16 | 21% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 12% |
| Researcher | 4 | 5% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 12 | 16% |
| Unknown | 23 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 29% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 17% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 4% |
| Psychology | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 8% |
| Unknown | 25 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 March 2020.
All research outputs
#6,439,423
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#3,598
of 7,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#126,650
of 443,392 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#68
of 145 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,806 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 443,392 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 145 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.