Resident and program characteristics that impact performance on the Ophthalmic Knowledge Assessment Program (OKAP).
Education
Knowledge
OKAP
Resident
Journal
BMC medical education
ISSN: 1472-6920
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Educ
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088679
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 Jun 2019
07 Jun 2019
Historique:
received:
21
12
2018
accepted:
29
05
2019
entrez:
9
6
2019
pubmed:
9
6
2019
medline:
24
12
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To determine which resident and program characteristics correlate with ophthalmic knowledge, as assessed by resident Ophthalmic Knowledge Assessment Program (OKAP) performance. An online survey was sent in June 2017 to all US ophthalmology residents who took the OKAP in April 2017. The survey response rate was 13.8% (192/1387 residents). The mean respondent age was 30.4 years, and 57.3% were male. The mean [SD] self-reported 2017 OKAP percentile was 61.9 [26.7]. OKAP performance was found to have a significant positive correlation with greater number of hours spent/week studying for the OKAPs (p = 0.007), with use of online question banks (p < 0.001), with review sessions and/or lectures arranged by residency programs (p < 0.001), and with OKAP-specific didactics (p = 0.002). On multivariable analysis, factors most predictive of residents scoring ≥75th percentile were, higher step 1 scores (OR = 2.48, [95% CI: 1.68-3.64, p < 0.001]), presence of incentives (OR = 2.75, [95% CI: 1.16-6.56, p = 0.022]), greater number of hours/week spent studying (OR = 1.09, [95% CI:1.01-1.17, p = 0.026]) and fewer hours spent in research 3 months prior to examination (OR = 1.08, [95% CI: 1.01-1.15, p = 0.020]. Lastly, residents less likely to depend on group study sessions as a learning method tended to score higher (OR = 3.40, [95% CI: 1.16-9.94, p = 0.026]). Programs wishing to improve resident OKAP scores might consider offering incentives, providing effective access to learning content e.g. online question banks, and adjusting the curriculum to highlight OKAP material. Step 1 scores may help educators identify residents who might be at risk of not performing as well on the OKAP.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
To determine which resident and program characteristics correlate with ophthalmic knowledge, as assessed by resident Ophthalmic Knowledge Assessment Program (OKAP) performance.
METHODS
METHODS
An online survey was sent in June 2017 to all US ophthalmology residents who took the OKAP in April 2017.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The survey response rate was 13.8% (192/1387 residents). The mean respondent age was 30.4 years, and 57.3% were male. The mean [SD] self-reported 2017 OKAP percentile was 61.9 [26.7]. OKAP performance was found to have a significant positive correlation with greater number of hours spent/week studying for the OKAPs (p = 0.007), with use of online question banks (p < 0.001), with review sessions and/or lectures arranged by residency programs (p < 0.001), and with OKAP-specific didactics (p = 0.002). On multivariable analysis, factors most predictive of residents scoring ≥75th percentile were, higher step 1 scores (OR = 2.48, [95% CI: 1.68-3.64, p < 0.001]), presence of incentives (OR = 2.75, [95% CI: 1.16-6.56, p = 0.022]), greater number of hours/week spent studying (OR = 1.09, [95% CI:1.01-1.17, p = 0.026]) and fewer hours spent in research 3 months prior to examination (OR = 1.08, [95% CI: 1.01-1.15, p = 0.020]. Lastly, residents less likely to depend on group study sessions as a learning method tended to score higher (OR = 3.40, [95% CI: 1.16-9.94, p = 0.026]).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Programs wishing to improve resident OKAP scores might consider offering incentives, providing effective access to learning content e.g. online question banks, and adjusting the curriculum to highlight OKAP material. Step 1 scores may help educators identify residents who might be at risk of not performing as well on the OKAP.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31174525
doi: 10.1186/s12909-019-1637-4
pii: 10.1186/s12909-019-1637-4
pmc: PMC6555746
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
190Références
J Surg Res. 2000 Jun 1;91(1):1-4
pubmed: 10816341
Surgery. 2000 Oct;128(4):613-22
pubmed: 11015095
CLAO J. 2000 Oct;26(4):221-4
pubmed: 11071347
Anesthesiology. 2002 May;96(5):1044-52
pubmed: 11981141
JAMA. 2002 Dec 18;288(23):3019-26
pubmed: 12479767
Surv Ophthalmol. 2003 Nov-Dec;48(6):651-62
pubmed: 14609711
Ophthalmology. 2005 Jul;112(7):1247-54
pubmed: 15921748
Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2007 Dec;36(12):E185-8
pubmed: 18264562
Am J Med. 2008 May;121(5):450-5
pubmed: 18456042
Ophthalmology. 2008 Sep;115(9):1591-7; quiz 1597.e1-5
pubmed: 18486218
JAMA. 2008 Sep 10;300(10):1181-96
pubmed: 18780847
Ophthalmology. 2009 May;116(5):1020-1020.e4
pubmed: 19410971
Ophthalmology. 2010 Dec;117(12):2435-9
pubmed: 20619896
Acad Med. 2010 Oct;85(10 Suppl):S93-7
pubmed: 20881714
JAMA. 2011 Sep 7;306(9):952-60
pubmed: 21900135
Ophthalmology. 2012 Oct;119(10):1949-53
pubmed: 22841987
Ann Surg. 2013 Feb;257(2):295-301
pubmed: 22968065
Ophthalmology. 2012 Oct;119(10):1947-8
pubmed: 23034290
Int J Med Educ. 2014 Nov 02;5:199-204
pubmed: 25362627
Ophthalmology. 2015 May;122(5):1063-5
pubmed: 25582783
JAMA Surg. 2015 Sep;150(9):882-9
pubmed: 26176352
J Grad Med Educ. 2016 May;8(2):214-8
pubmed: 27168890
Ophthalmology. 1989 Apr;96(4):552-4
pubmed: 2726188
J Surg Res. 2017 Sep;217:217-225
pubmed: 28595817
BMC Med Educ. 2017 Jul 11;17(1):114
pubmed: 28697744
Ann Intern Med. 1989 May 1;110(9):719-26
pubmed: 2930109
JAMA. 2019 Mar 4;:null
pubmed: 30830150
Med Care. 1986 Sep;24(9):785-800
pubmed: 3762245
Arch Surg. 1995 Sep;130(9):1022
pubmed: 7661664
Arch Surg. 1995 Jan;130(1):83-7
pubmed: 7802582
Ophthalmology. 1994 Jan;101(1):194-8
pubmed: 8302555
JAMA. 1998 Sep 16;280(11):989-96
pubmed: 9749481