Uptake and effectiveness of online diabetes continuing education: The perspectives of Thai general practitioner trainees.

Continuing medical education General practitioners Medical education Online education Type 2 diabetes mellitus

Journal

Heliyon
ISSN: 2405-8440
Titre abrégé: Heliyon
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101672560

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Feb 2023
Historique:
received: 28 06 2021
revised: 23 01 2023
accepted: 26 01 2023
entrez: 9 2 2023
pubmed: 10 2 2023
medline: 10 2 2023
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Despite continuing medical education (CME) programmes on evidence-based diabetes care, evidence-based best practice and actual GP practice remain scant. Online CME offers numerous benefits to general practitioners (GPs), particularly during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. In Thailand, CME is a voluntary process and is yet to be established as a mandatory requirement. This study examined GP uptake of online diabetes CME and the changes in GPs' attitudes to and knowledge of Type 2 diabetes management. A cross-sectional study and a before-and-after study were employed with 279 GP trainees who voluntarily undertook a newly-developed online diabetes programme. A follow-up survey was conducted six months after the GP trainees completed their training. One hundred and twelve out of 279 GP trainees (40.1%) participated in the study, of whom 37 (13.3%) enrolled in the online diabetes programme, and 20 (7.2%) completed the programme. Before enrolling in the programme, the participants' mean diabetes knowledge score was 61.5%. The participants' confidence in effective insulin treatment increased significantly after the programme (95% Confidence interval [CI], -0.51-0.00; P = 0.05), but their knowledge scores before and after the programme were not statistically different (95% CI, -3.93-0.59; P = 0.14). Uptake of the online diabetes CME was poor, although appropriate recruitment strategies were employed, and the online educational option was attractive and accessible during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study emphasises the gap between evidence-based practice and actual GP practice and the need for mandatory CME.

Sections du résumé

Background UNASSIGNED
Despite continuing medical education (CME) programmes on evidence-based diabetes care, evidence-based best practice and actual GP practice remain scant. Online CME offers numerous benefits to general practitioners (GPs), particularly during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. In Thailand, CME is a voluntary process and is yet to be established as a mandatory requirement. This study examined GP uptake of online diabetes CME and the changes in GPs' attitudes to and knowledge of Type 2 diabetes management.
Methods UNASSIGNED
A cross-sectional study and a before-and-after study were employed with 279 GP trainees who voluntarily undertook a newly-developed online diabetes programme. A follow-up survey was conducted six months after the GP trainees completed their training.
Results UNASSIGNED
One hundred and twelve out of 279 GP trainees (40.1%) participated in the study, of whom 37 (13.3%) enrolled in the online diabetes programme, and 20 (7.2%) completed the programme. Before enrolling in the programme, the participants' mean diabetes knowledge score was 61.5%. The participants' confidence in effective insulin treatment increased significantly after the programme (95% Confidence interval [CI], -0.51-0.00; P = 0.05), but their knowledge scores before and after the programme were not statistically different (95% CI, -3.93-0.59; P = 0.14).
Conclusion UNASSIGNED
Uptake of the online diabetes CME was poor, although appropriate recruitment strategies were employed, and the online educational option was attractive and accessible during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study emphasises the gap between evidence-based practice and actual GP practice and the need for mandatory CME.

Identifiants

pubmed: 36755621
doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e13355
pii: S2405-8440(23)00562-5
pmc: PMC9900372
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

e13355

Informations de copyright

© 2023 The Authors.

Références

Front Med (Lausanne). 2021 Nov 15;8:773806
pubmed: 34869493
Gac Sanit. 2021;35 Suppl 2:S120-S122
pubmed: 34929792
J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2004 Fall;24(4):227-36
pubmed: 15709562
Global Health. 2013 Mar 14;9:11
pubmed: 23497447
CMAJ. 1995 Nov 15;153(10):1423-31
pubmed: 7585368
Med Educ. 2005 Jun;39(6):561-7
pubmed: 15910431
J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2004 Winter;24(1):20-30
pubmed: 15069909
Cureus. 2021 Feb 6;13(2):e13166
pubmed: 33575156
MD Comput. 1999 May-Jun;16(3):54-8
pubmed: 10439603
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005 Summer;21(3):380-5
pubmed: 16110718
Can Fam Physician. 2018 Nov;64(11):832-840
pubmed: 30429181
Aust Health Rev. 2002;25(6):131-5
pubmed: 12536872
J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2010 Winter;30(1):3-10
pubmed: 20222035
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Jul 08;(3):MR000008
pubmed: 19588449
BMC Med Educ. 2010 Feb 02;10:12
pubmed: 20122253
Heliyon. 2021 Oct 15;7(10):e08182
pubmed: 34746465
World J Urol. 2021 Jun;39(6):1997-2003
pubmed: 32860535
Prim Care Diabetes. 2021 Jun;15(3):495-501
pubmed: 33349599
Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2012 Mar;95(3):326-32
pubmed: 22153417
J Clin Pharm Ther. 2011 Dec;36(6):664-72
pubmed: 21355875
JAMA. 1999 Sep 1;282(9):867-74
pubmed: 10478694
Aust J Rural Health. 2011 Jun;19(3):111-7
pubmed: 21605223
Inform Prim Care. 2007;15(2):83-91
pubmed: 17877870
J Gen Intern Med. 2004 Jun;19(6):698-707
pubmed: 15209610
Acad Med. 2010 May;85(5):909-22
pubmed: 20520049
JAMA. 2008 Sep 10;300(10):1181-96
pubmed: 18780847
Med Teach. 2010;32(11):e501-8
pubmed: 21039092
Aust Fam Physician. 2014 Oct;43(10):717-21
pubmed: 25286431
Front Public Health. 2019 Jun 27;7:176
pubmed: 31316961
Fam Pract. 2009 Dec;26(6):466-71
pubmed: 19858123
Trials. 2017 Mar 23;18(1):137
pubmed: 28335809
J Public Health Dent. 2004 Summer;64(3):164-72
pubmed: 15341140
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001;(1):CD001481
pubmed: 11279717
J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2009 Winter;29(1):44-51
pubmed: 19288566
BMJ. 1999 May 8;318(7193):1267-9
pubmed: 10231262
BMC Res Notes. 2016 Jul 19;9:350
pubmed: 27435412
Ann Acad Med Singap. 2005 Dec;34(11):714-6
pubmed: 16453045
Acad Med. 2021 Jun 1;96(6):913-923
pubmed: 33332905
Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep). 2007 Jan;(149):1-69
pubmed: 17764217
Diabet Med. 2014 Dec;31(12):1488-97
pubmed: 25047877
Educ Prim Care. 2018 May;29(3):151-165
pubmed: 29623773
J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2004 Summer;24(3):171-80
pubmed: 15490549
Educ Health (Abingdon). 2003 Nov;16(3):328-38
pubmed: 14741881
Aust Fam Physician. 2014 Jun;43(6):399-402
pubmed: 24897992
J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2003 Winter;23(1):38-47
pubmed: 12739258
JAMA. 1995 Sep 6;274(9):700-5
pubmed: 7650822
Rural Remote Health. 2014;14:2499
pubmed: 24611454

Auteurs

Isaraporn Thepwongsa (I)

Family Medicine Unit, Department of Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Thailand.

Radhakrishnan Muthukumar (R)

Academic Affairs, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Thailand.

Poompong Sripa (P)

Medicine for the Elderly Department, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.

Leon Piterman (L)

Department of General Practice, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Australia.

Classifications MeSH