Uptake and Effectiveness of Online Diabetes Continuing Education: The Perspectives of Thai General Practitioner Trainees

Overview

Journal Heliyon

Specialty Social Sciences

Date 2023 Feb 9

PMID 36755621

Authors

Isaraporn Thepwongsa

Radhakrishnan Muthukumar

Poompong Sripa

Leon Piterman

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: 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: 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: 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: 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.

Citing Articles

The perspectives of learners at a public medical school on the evaluation of an online learning management system for degree and non-degree courses.

Thepwongsa I, Muthukumar R, Sripa P, Waraassawapati S, Jenwitheesuk K, Virasiri S Med Educ Online. 2023; 29(1):2299535.

PMID: 38159283 PMC: 10763867. DOI: 10.1080/10872981.2023.2299535.

Why confidence leads to swifter tertiary education choices: A qualitative study of the international tertiary education industry of Australia.

Rainer Gottlieb U, Beatson A Heliyon. 2023; 9(6):e17484.

PMID: 37416679 PMC: 10320094. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e17484.

References

Schulte T, Groning T, Ramsauer B, Weimann J, Pin M, Jerusalem K . Impact of COVID-19 on Continuing Medical Education-Results of an Online Survey Among Users of a Non-profit Multi-Specialty Live Online Education Platform. Front Med (Lausanne). 2021; 8:773806. PMC: 8634132. DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2021.773806. View

Sanusi Baso Y, Syafruddin A, Padlan A, Akbar M . Continuing medical education for general practitioners in Indonesia: Moving toward accountability. Gac Sanit. 2021; 35 Suppl 2:S120-S122. DOI: 10.1016/j.gaceta.2021.07.008. View

Sargeant J, Curran V, Jarvis-Selinger S, Ferrier S, Allen M, Kirby F . Interactive on-line continuing medical education: physicians' perceptions and experiences. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2005; 24(4):227-36. DOI: 10.1002/chp.1340240406. View

Deerochanawong C, Ferrario A . Diabetes management in Thailand: a literature review of the burden, costs, and outcomes. Global Health. 2013; 9:11. PMC: 3623827. DOI: 10.1186/1744-8603-9-11. View

Oxman A, Thomson M, Davis D, Haynes R . No magic bullets: a systematic review of 102 trials of interventions to improve professional practice. CMAJ. 1995; 153(10):1423-31. PMC: 1487455. View

Curran V, Fleet L . A review of evaluation outcomes of web-based continuing medical education. Med Educ. 2005; 39(6):561-7. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02173.x. View

Wutoh R, Boren S, Balas E . eLearning: a review of Internet-based continuing medical education. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2004; 24(1):20-30. DOI: 10.1002/chp.1340240105. View

Rauf L . Case-Based Discussion in United Kingdom General Practice Training: A Critical Analysis. Cureus. 2021; 13(2):e13166. PMC: 7870116. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.13166. View

Chan D, Leclair K, Kaczorowski J . Problem-based small-group learning via the Internet among community family physicians: a randomized controlled trial. MD Comput. 1999; 16(3):54-8. View

10.

Bloom B . 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):380-5. DOI: 10.1017/s026646230505049x. View

11.

Finley C, Chan D, Garrison S, Korownyk C, Kolber M, Campbell S . What are the most common conditions in primary care? Systematic review. Can Fam Physician. 2018; 64(11):832-840. PMC: 6234945. View

12.

Robinson A . Video-conferencing: under-used by rural general practitioners. Aust Health Rev. 2003; 25(6):131-5. DOI: 10.1071/ah020131a. View

13.

Harris Jr J, Sklar B, Amend R, Novalis-Marine C . The growth, characteristics, and future of online CME. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2010; 30(1):3-10. DOI: 10.1002/chp.20050. View

14.

Edwards P, Roberts I, Clarke M, DiGuiseppi C, Wentz R, Kwan I . Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009; (3):MR000008. PMC: 8941848. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000008.pub4. View

15.

Wong G, Greenhalgh T, Pawson R . Internet-based medical education: a realist review of what works, for whom and in what circumstances. BMC Med Educ. 2010; 10:12. PMC: 2825237. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6920-10-12. View

16.

Thepwongsa I, Sripa P, Muthukumar R, Jenwitheesuk K, Virasiri S, Nonjui P . The effects of a newly established online learning management system: the perspectives of Thai medical students in a public medical school. Heliyon. 2021; 7(10):e08182. PMC: 8551520. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e08182. View

17.

Gravas S, Ahmad M, Hernandez-Porras A, Furriel F, Alvarez-Maestro M, Kumar A . Impact of COVID-19 on medical education: introducing homo digitalis. World J Urol. 2020; 39(6):1997-2003. PMC: 7455506. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-020-03417-3. View

18.

Nokleby K, Berg T, Mdala I, Tran A, Bakke A, Gjelsvik B . Variation between general practitioners in type 2 diabetes processes of care. Prim Care Diabetes. 2020; 15(3):495-501. DOI: 10.1016/j.pcd.2020.11.018. View

19.

Jiwa M, Meng X, Sriram D, Hughes J, Colagiuri S, Twigg S . The management of Type 2 diabetes: a survey of Australian general practitioners. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2011; 95(3):326-32. DOI: 10.1016/j.diabres.2011.11.004. View

20.

Krass I, Hebing R, Mitchell B, Hughes J, Peterson G, Song Y . Diabetes management in an Australian primary care population. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2011; 36(6):664-72. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2710.2010.01221.x. View