Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Nov 29;11(1):2153438.
doi: 10.1080/21614083.2022.2153438. eCollection 2022.

Personalised versus non-individualised case-based CME: A randomised pilot study

Herman Stoevelaar  1 , Amit Bahl  2 , Nicky Helsen  1 , Nele R M Michels  3 , Louis Smets  1 , Mark J Speakman  4   5 , Johan Stranne  6   7 , Jaan Toelen  4   8   9 , Frank Van der Aa  8   10 , Luc Van Ruysevelt  4   11 , Jessa Yperman  1 , Thomas Zilli  12 , Bertrand F Tombal  4   13 , Martin C Michel  4   14
Affiliations

Personalised versus non-individualised case-based CME: A randomised pilot study

Herman Stoevelaar et al. J Eur CME. .

Abstract

The PinPoint Case Platform (PPCP) offers independent online case-based CME. To align with personal learning needs, a functionality of needs assessments ("QuickScan") was developed, directing users to follow personalised case journeys. A randomised study was conducted, comparing its effectiveness, time efficiency and user experience with a format of non-individualised case-based learning. Forty-two residents in urology from five European countries were randomly assigned to follow non-individualised case-based learning (control group) or a needs assessment plus personalised case journeys on different topics in prostate cancer. After performing a pre- and post-assessment, both groups showed a similar increase in test scores (Mann-Whitney U = 247; p = .113), but the time needed for completing the learning exercise was significantly lower in the group with the personalised approach (median: 45 vs 90 minutes; Mann-Whitney U = 97.5; p = .0141). The quality of the two learning methods was similarly well received by both groups. In conclusion, learners who followed personalised case journeys learned similarly effective but more time efficient than non-individualised case-based learners. Future studies should determine if these findings can be extrapolated to board-certified physicians following CME activities.

Keywords: Continuing medical education; case-based learning; individualised learning; online CME; prostate cancer.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

AB has received meeting support and honorarium from Sanofi, Astellas, Janssen, Bayer and AAA Pharmaceutical. NRMM, JS, JT, FVdA and TZ declare no competing interests related to the present study. NH and JY are employees of Ismar Healthcare. LS, LVR and HS are partners in Ismar Healthcare and e-HIMS. MJS has received honoraria from Astellas for lectures/chairmanship. BFT has received grants/research supports or honoraria from Amgen, Astellas, Janssens, Ferring, Sanofi, Bayer and Myovant. MCM has received speaker and/or consultancy honorary from Apogepha, Astellas, Dr. Willmar Schwabe, GSK and Sanofi-Aventis.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Overview of the study design. The same 27 pre-assessment questions were included in the electronic survey and QuickScan but, in contrast to the electronic survey, the QuickScan provided targeted feedback (correct answer with supporting evidence).
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Comparison of learning effects between the control and QS-PCJ group. (A) Pre- and post-test scores of the control group. (B) Pre- and post-test scores of the QS-PCJ group. (C) Change in the percentage of correct answers in both groups. The graphs represent the median values with interquartile ranges. QS-PCJ: QuickScan plus Personalised Case Journey.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Self-reported time spent with learning on the PPCP. The graph represents the median values with interquartile ranges. QS-PCJ: QuickScan plus Personalised Case Journey.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. VanNieuwenborg L, Goossens M, De Lepeleire J, et al. Continuing medical education for general practitioners: a practice format. Postgrad Med J. 2016;92(1086):217–7. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Cervero RM, Gaines JK.. The impact of CME on physician performance and patient health outcomes: an updated synthesis of systematic reviews. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2015;35(2):131–138. - PubMed
    1. Bloom BS. Effects of continuing medical education on improving physician clinical care and patient health: a review of systematic reviews. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21(3):380–385. - PubMed
    1. Shah S. The technological impact of COVID-19 on the future of education and health care delivery. Pain Physician. 2020;23(4S):S367–S80. - PubMed
    1. Gravas S, Ahmad M, Hernandez-Porras A, et al. Impact of COVID-19 on medical education: introducing homo digitalis. World J Urol. 2021;39(6):1997–2003. - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources