Implementing and evaluating an e-portfolio for postgraduate family medicine training in the Western Cape, South Africa.
Attitude of Health Personnel
Clinical Competence
/ standards
Cloud Computing
Documentation
/ methods
Education, Medical, Graduate
Educational Measurement
Evaluation Studies as Topic
Family Practice
/ education
Feedback
Humans
Internet
Learning
Physicians, Family
/ education
Program Development
South Africa
Assessment
E-portfolio
Family medicine
Postgraduate
Training
Workplace
Journal
BMC medical education
ISSN: 1472-6920
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Educ
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088679
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 Jul 2019
08 Jul 2019
Historique:
received:
17
02
2019
accepted:
30
06
2019
entrez:
10
7
2019
pubmed:
10
7
2019
medline:
21
1
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In South Africa it is compulsory to submit a satisfactory portfolio of learning to gain entrance to the national exit examination of the College of Family Physicians and to qualify as a family physician. A paper-based portfolio has been implemented thus far and the need for an electronic portfolio (e-portfolio) was identified. The aim of the study was to describe and evaluate the implementation of an e-portfolio for the training of family medicine registrars in the Western Cape province of South Africa. Mixed methods were used. A quasi-experimental study evaluated paper- and e-portfolios from the same 28 registrars in 2015 compared to 2016. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 11 registrars or supervisors to explore their experiences of using the e-portfolio. Quantitative data was analysed in the Statistical Package for Social Sciences and qualitative data in Atlas.ti. Most respondents found the e-portfolio easier to use and more accessible. It made progress easier to monitor and provided sufficient evidence of learning. Feedback was made easier and more explicit. There were concerns regarding face-to-face feedback being negatively affected. It was suggested to have a feedback template to further improve feedback. Several aspects were significantly better in the e-portfolio such as feedback on the registrar's general behaviour, alignment with learning outcomes, less feedback based on hearsay and acknowledgement of the feedback by the registrar. Although not statistically significant, there was an increase in the usage of the e-portfolio, compared to the paper portfolio. In general, the e-portfolio is an improvement on the paper-based portfolio. It is easier to access, more user-friendly and less cumbersome. It makes feedback and monitoring of progress and development of registrars easier and more visible and provides sufficient evidence of learning. Its implementation throughout South Africa is recommended.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
In South Africa it is compulsory to submit a satisfactory portfolio of learning to gain entrance to the national exit examination of the College of Family Physicians and to qualify as a family physician. A paper-based portfolio has been implemented thus far and the need for an electronic portfolio (e-portfolio) was identified. The aim of the study was to describe and evaluate the implementation of an e-portfolio for the training of family medicine registrars in the Western Cape province of South Africa.
METHODS
METHODS
Mixed methods were used. A quasi-experimental study evaluated paper- and e-portfolios from the same 28 registrars in 2015 compared to 2016. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 11 registrars or supervisors to explore their experiences of using the e-portfolio. Quantitative data was analysed in the Statistical Package for Social Sciences and qualitative data in Atlas.ti.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Most respondents found the e-portfolio easier to use and more accessible. It made progress easier to monitor and provided sufficient evidence of learning. Feedback was made easier and more explicit. There were concerns regarding face-to-face feedback being negatively affected. It was suggested to have a feedback template to further improve feedback. Several aspects were significantly better in the e-portfolio such as feedback on the registrar's general behaviour, alignment with learning outcomes, less feedback based on hearsay and acknowledgement of the feedback by the registrar. Although not statistically significant, there was an increase in the usage of the e-portfolio, compared to the paper portfolio.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
In general, the e-portfolio is an improvement on the paper-based portfolio. It is easier to access, more user-friendly and less cumbersome. It makes feedback and monitoring of progress and development of registrars easier and more visible and provides sufficient evidence of learning. Its implementation throughout South Africa is recommended.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31286945
doi: 10.1186/s12909-019-1692-x
pii: 10.1186/s12909-019-1692-x
pmc: PMC6615201
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
251Subventions
Organisme : National Research Foundation
ID : CPRR150708124403 / 98944
Références
Med Teach. 2009 Sep;31(9):790-801
pubmed: 19811183
AANA J. 2012 Apr;80(2):89-93
pubmed: 22586876
BMC Med Educ. 2013 Jul 25;13:101
pubmed: 23885806
Med Teach. 2010;32(8):676-82
pubmed: 20662580
Med Teach. 2009 Jun;31(6):497-501
pubmed: 19140059
Med Teach. 2006 Dec;28(8):708-12
pubmed: 17594582
Med Teach. 2006 Nov;28(7):587-90
pubmed: 17594547
BMC Med Educ. 2013 Nov 08;13:149
pubmed: 24207009
Med Educ. 2007 Nov;41(11):1067-73
pubmed: 17973767
Acad Med. 2016 Feb;91(2):180-5
pubmed: 26332429
Acad Med. 1990 Sep;65(9 Suppl):S63-7
pubmed: 2400509
BMC Med Educ. 2006 Jan 12;6:4
pubmed: 16409640
BMC Med Educ. 2016 Feb 17;16:66
pubmed: 26887892
Med Teach. 2006 Aug;28(5):404-8
pubmed: 16973451
Postgrad Med J. 2005 Jun;81(956):389-90
pubmed: 15937205
Med Teach. 2009 Apr;31(4):299-318
pubmed: 19404890
BMC Fam Pract. 2012 Mar 03;13:11
pubmed: 22385468
Med Educ. 2005 Mar;39(3):309-17
pubmed: 15733167
Acta Chir Belg. 2015 Jan;115(1):68-75
pubmed: 27384899
Med Educ. 2007 Dec;41(12):1224-33
pubmed: 18045373
Med Teach. 2007 Nov;29(9):855-71
pubmed: 18158655
Acad Med. 2012 Jun;87(6):744-51
pubmed: 22534601
S Afr Med J. 2007 Jun;97(6):438, 440
pubmed: 17691472
N Engl J Med. 2014 Oct 2;371(14):1344-53
pubmed: 25265493
BMJ. 1991 Nov 30;303(6814):1377-80
pubmed: 1760606
S Afr Fam Pract (2004). 2022 Mar 17;64(1):e1-e7
pubmed: 35384681
Nurse Educ Pract. 2014 Jan;14(1):4-8
pubmed: 24090523
Med Teach. 2016 Sep;38(9):936-45
pubmed: 26829024