Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorIfediora, Chris O
dc.date.accessioned2019-09-26T01:40:39Z
dc.date.available2019-09-26T01:40:39Z
dc.date.issued2019
dc.identifier.issn2382-1205en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1177/2382120519827912en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/387765
dc.description.abstractBackground: Online education options increasingly complement traditional face-to-face (F2F) approaches. Few studies have compared both formats on doctors, and little evidence exists to prove that the online approach is universally effective. This gap needs to be addressed to ensure that the quality of education and health care delivery is not compromised. Methods: A quantitative survey targeting 881 doctors that required online and F2F teaching sessions offers identical contents over a 12-month period. The surveyed doctors work in the Australian after-hours house-call (AHHC) industry, and the teachings were parts of their continuing professional development activities. Results: In all, 89 responses were received; 10 (11.2%) participated exclusively online, while 23 (25.8%) did so by F2F; 52 (58.4%) engaged through both modalities. No statistical differences existed based on sex, specialty, and post-graduate fellowship status, as well as on the perceptions with teaching structure, contents, and duration of the education programmes. However, F2F-only doctors were likely to be junior and younger than 40 years (odds ratio [OR]: 3.85; P = .01). They also admit easy access to effective teaching environment (OR: 4.07; P = .01) and receive better feedbacks (OR: 3.75; P = .01). Conversely, online-only participants were more likely to combine AHHC duties with regular-hours general practice (OR: 0.15; P = .02) and are generally more satisfied with the programme frequency (OR: 6.90; P = .01). Conclusions: On multiple areas, no differences exist in the medical education delivered by online and the F2F methods to doctors and both should be encouraged. However, younger and junior practitioners, who tend to need feedbacks on their jobs, should participate more in the F2F sessions.en_US
dc.description.peerreviewedYesen_US
dc.languageEnglishen_US
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherSageen_US
dc.relation.ispartofjournalJournal of Medical Education and Curricular Developmenten_US
dc.relation.ispartofvolume6en_US
dc.subject.keywordsSocial Sciencesen_US
dc.subject.keywordsEducation, Scientific Disciplinesen_US
dc.subject.keywordsEducation & Educational Researchen_US
dc.subject.keywordsdoctorsen_US
dc.subject.keywordsmedicalen_US
dc.titleOnline Medical Education for Doctors: Identifying Potential Gaps to the Traditional, Face-to-Face Modalityen_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.type.descriptionC1 - Articlesen_US
dcterms.bibliographicCitationIfediora, CO, Online Medical Education for Doctors: Identifying Potential Gaps to the Traditional, Face-to-Face Modality, Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development, 2019, 6en_US
dcterms.dateAccepted2019-01-07
dcterms.licensehttp://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/en_US
dc.date.updated2019-09-26T01:34:26Z
dc.description.versionVersion of Record (VoR)en_US
gro.rights.copyright© The Author(s) 2019. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License, which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).en_US
gro.hasfulltextFull Text
gro.griffith.authorIfediora, Chris O.


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Journal articles
    Contains articles published by Griffith authors in scholarly journals.

Show simple item record