Abstract
Objective
This study aimed at creating electronic cases (e-cases) and analyzing their validity as a diagnostic assessment tool within the context of continuing medical education (CME) to measure general practitioners’ (GPs) knowledge of common infectious disease.
Methods
We designed assessment e-cases in an electronic CME platform. The e-cases were designed to measure GPs’ knowledge about diagnosis and treatment of common infectious disease in outpatient settings. The data collected were analyzed for five forms of evidence: content, response process, internal structure, relations with other variables and consequences.
Results
A total of 46 GPs participated in the study. Among them, 87% perceived the e-cases as resembling the patients whom they visit in their everyday practice. Although attendance in this activity made 85% of the participants more cautious about prescription of antibiotics, we could not detect any statistically significant association between the assessment scores and the physicians’ previous antibiotic prescription. The diagnostic assessment with e-cases was supported by most of the elements of validity evidence, including content, response process, internal structure and consequences.
Conclusions
Overall, evidence suggests that using e-cases might be a valid diagnostic assessment CME activity to measure GPs’ knowledge of common infectious disease, but more research is necessary.
Funding source: Isfahan University of Medical Sciences
Award Identifier / Grant number: 295088
Funding statement: This study was financially supported by MUI (Funder Id: 10.13039/501100003970, grant no. 295088).
Acknowledgments
The authors express their gratitude to the GPs who participated in this study and dedicated their time. We also would like to thank Dr Peyman Adibi, Dr Mohammad Amir Shahkarami, Dr Monir Emadoleslami and Dr Mahdi Movahed Abtahi for reviewing the e-cases and Natalia Stathakarou, Christos Vaitsis, Mina Ohadi, and Bahareh Soleimani for their collaboration in the design, implementation and data gathering of the project. We also acknowledge Carina George for proofreading an earlier version of the manuscript.
Author contributions: All the authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved submission.
Employment or leadership: None declared.
Honorarium: The funding organization played no role in the study design; collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the report for publication.
Competing interests: The funding organization(s) played no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the report for publication.
References
[1] Cook DA, Blachman MJ, Price DW, West CP, Baasch Thomas BL, Berger RA. Educational technologies for physician continuous professional development: a national survey. Acad Med 2018;93(1):104–112 .10.1097/ACM.0000000000001817Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[2] Hadadgar A, Changiz T, Dehghani Z, Backheden M, Mirshahzadeh N, Zary N, et al. A theory-based study of factors explaining general practitionersʼ intention to use and participation in electronic continuing medical education. J Contin Educ Health Prof 2016;36:290–4.10.1097/CEH.0000000000000123Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[3] Cook DA, Blachman MJ, Price DW, West CP, Berger RA, Wittich CM. Professional development perceptions and practices among US physicians: a cross-specialty national survey. Acad Med 2017;92(9):1335–1345.10.1097/ACM.0000000000001624Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[4] Thistlethwaite JE, Davies D, Ekeocha S, Kidd JM, MacDougall C, Matthews P, et al. The effectiveness of case-based learning in health professional education. A BEME systematic review: BEME guide No. 23. Med Teach 2012;34:e421–44.10.3109/0142159X.2012.680939Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[5] Posel N, Fleiszer D, Shore BM. 12 Tips: guidelines for authoring virtual patient cases. Med Teach 2009;31:701–8.10.1080/01421590902793867Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[6] Cook DA, Triola MM. Virtual patients: a critical literature review and proposed next steps. Med Educ 2009;43:303–11.10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03286.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
[7] Cantillon P, Irish B, Sales D. Using computers for assessment in medicine. Br Med J 2004;329:606–9.10.1136/bmj.329.7466.606Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
[8] Kane MT. Current concerns in validity theory. J Educ Meas 2001;38:319–42.10.1111/j.1745-3984.2001.tb01130.xSearch in Google Scholar
[9] Mucklow J, Bollington L, Maxwell S. Assessing prescribing competence. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2012;74:632–9.10.1111/j.1365-2125.2011.04151.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
[10] Farmer EA, Page G. A practical guide to assessing clinical decision-making skills using the key features approach. Med Educ 2005;39:1188–94.10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02339.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
[11] Downing SM. Validity: on the meaningful interpretation of assessment data. Med Educ 2003;37:830–7.10.1046/j.1365-2923.2003.01594.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
[12] Cook DA, Zendejas B, Hamstra SJ, Hatala R, Brydges R. What counts as validity evidence? Examples and prevalence in a systematic review of simulation-based assessment. Adv Health Sci Educ 2014;19:233–50.10.1007/s10459-013-9458-4Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[13] McKenzie H, Laing R, Mackenzie A, Molyneaux P, Bal A. Infectious disease: clinical cases uncovered. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons; 2010.Search in Google Scholar
[14] Huwendiek S, De Leng B, Kononowicz A, Kunzmann R, Muijtjens A, Van Der Vleuten C, et al. Exploring the validity and reliability of a questionnaire for evaluating virtual patient design with a special emphasis on fostering clinical reasoning. Med Teach 2015;37:775–82.10.3109/0142159X.2014.970622Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[15] Assessment systems. CITAS. Minnesota; 2016.Search in Google Scholar
[16] Teixeira Rodrigues A, Roque F, Falcão A, Figueiras A, Herdeiro MT. Understanding physician antibiotic prescribing behaviour: a systematic review of qualitative studies. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2013;41:203–12.10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2012.09.003Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[17] Safaeian L, Mahdanian AR, Hashemi-Fesharaki M, Salami S, Kebriaee-Zadeh J, Sadeghian GH. General physicians and prescribing pattern in Isfahan, Iran. Oman Med J. 2011;26:205–6.10.5001/omj.2011.50Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
[18] Oermann MH, Gaberson KB. Evaluation and testing in nursing education. 4th edn. New York, NY: Springer; 2013.Search in Google Scholar
[19] Gikandi JW, Morrow D, Davis NE. Online formative assessment in higher education: a review of the literature. Comput Educ 2011;57:2333–51.10.1016/j.compedu.2011.06.004Search in Google Scholar
[20] Downing SM, Haladyna TM. Validity threats: overcoming interference with proposed interpretations of assessment data. Med Educ 2004;327–33.10.1046/j.1365-2923.2004.01777.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
[21] Stålsby Lundborg C, Tamhankar AJ. Understanding and changing human behaviour—antibiotic mainstreaming as an approach to facilitate modification of provider and consumer behaviour. Ups J Med Sci 2014;119(January):125–33.10.3109/03009734.2014.905664Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
[22] Kononowicz AA, Zary N, Edelbring S, Corral J, Hege I. Virtual patients – what are we talking about? A framework to classify the meanings of the term in healthcare education. BMC Med Educ 2015;15:11.10.1186/s12909-015-0296-3Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
[23] Cox M, Irby DM, Epstein RM. Assessment in medical education. N Engl J Med 2007;356:387–96.10.1056/NEJMra054784Search in Google Scholar PubMed
©2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
