Monthly Archives: August 2011

In support of didactic CME

Here is an excerpt from a needs assessment for a didactic CME activity:

…a 2000 survey of Kaiser Permanente physicians reported lecture to be the perceived most useful and effective CME format (1).  Although there is little evidence in support of live format CME in regard to changing physician behavior, performance or patient outcomes (2), there appears to be considerable preference for this format.  Some suggest that limitations of methods for attributing physician practice and/or patient health changes to CME make it difficult to validate any format, whereas physician preferences may be a more useful metric (3).

In that definitive data in support of any specific CME format remains to be reported and preference data of our target audience (as well as external physician populations) continues to support the live CME format, we will continue to include live CME in our programming.

1. Price DW, et al. Results of the First National Kaiser Permanente Continuing Medical Education Needs Assessment Survey. The Permanente Journal 2002;6:p76-84.
2. Davis D, et al. The impact of formal continuing medical education: do conferences, workshops, rounds and other traditional continuing education activities change physician behavior or health outcomes? JAMA 1999;282:867-74.
3. McLeod PJ and McLeod AH. If formal CME is ineffective, why do physicians still participate? Medical Teacher 2004;26:184-6.
I hope this is helpful.

Leave a comment

Filed under CME, Didactic, Needs Assessment

You’re doing it wrong (Likert scale edition)

Graduate school professors and academic mentors all soberly agreed that whatever manuscript I was currently stressing over would ultimately be read by three peer reviewers and then no one else.  I could accept that my family and friends wouldn’t be interested in The effects of physician specialty and patient comorbidities on the use and discontinuation of coxibs, but surely it would fill a hole in some greater literature stream and assist in the improvement of…something?

Not bloody likely.

In yet another example of I-published-that-15-years-ago-and-nobody-read-it-and-they’ve-been-doing-it-wrong-since, Roberson et al very clearly explain how we’ve been inappropriately using the t-test to analyze Likert scale data (link).  Well, I’m sorry it’s taken so long, but I promise to use the “sign test” from here forward.

Leave a comment

Filed under Likert scale, sign test