↓ Skip to main content

Didactic CME and practice change: don’t throw that baby out quite yet

Overview of attention for article published in Advances in Health Sciences Education, October 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Didactic CME and practice change: don’t throw that baby out quite yet
Published in
Advances in Health Sciences Education, October 2011
DOI 10.1007/s10459-011-9330-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Curtis A. Olson, Tricia R. Tooman

Abstract

Skepticism exists regarding the role of continuing medical education (CME) in improving physician performance. The harshest criticism has been reserved for didactic CME. Reviews of the scientific literature on the effectiveness of CME conclude that formal or didactic modes of education have little or no impact on clinical practice. This has led some to argue that didactic CME is a highly questionable use of organizational and financial resources, and a cause of lost opportunities for physicians to engage in meaningful learning. The authors' current program of research has forced them to reconsider the received wisdom regarding the relationship between didactic modes of education and learning, and the role frank dissemination can play in bringing about practice change. The authors argued that the practice of assessing and valuing educational methods based only on their capacity to directly influence practice reflects an impoverished understanding of how change in clinical practice actually occurs. Drawing on case studies research, examples were given of the functions didactic CME served in the interest of improved practice. Reasons were then explored as to why the contribution of didactic CME is often missed or dismissed. The goal was not to advocate for a return to the status quo ante where lecture-based education is the dominant modality, but rather to acknowledge both the limits and potential of this longstanding approach to delivering continuing education.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
South Africa 1 2%
Unknown 41 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 23%
Other 5 12%
Researcher 4 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Student > Postgraduate 3 7%
Other 11 26%
Unknown 6 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 11 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 26%
Psychology 3 7%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 3 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 6 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 08 October 2011.
All research outputs
#18,297,449
of 22,653,392 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Health Sciences Education
#743
of 849 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#112,829
of 135,640 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in Health Sciences Education
#8
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,653,392 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 849 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 135,640 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.