Presentation of evidence in continuing medical education programs: a mixed methods study.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical trial data can be presented in ways that exaggerate treatment effectiveness. Physicians consider therapy more effective, and may be more likely to make inappropriate practice changes, when data are presented in relative terms such as relative risk reduction rather than in absolute terms such as absolute risk reduction and number needed to treat. Our purpose was to determine (1) how frequently continuing medical education (CME) speakers present research data in relative terms compared to absolute terms; (2) how knowledgeable CME speakers and learners are about these terms; and (3) how CME learners want these terms presented. METHODS: Analysis of videotapes and PowerPoint slides of 26 CME presentations, questionnaire survey of CME speakers and learners, and focus groups with learners. RESULTS: Speakers presented data more frequently in relative than absolute terms, but most frequently in general terms such as frequencies, percentages, graphs, and P-values with no data. Of 1367 PowerPoint slides, 269 presented research data, and of these, 225 (84%) presented data in general terms, 50 (19%) in relative terms and 19 (7%) in absolute terms. CME speakers understood relative and absolute terms better than learners. Approximately 25-35% of speakers and 45-65% of learners could not correctly calculate relative risk reduction, absolute risk reduction, and number needed to treat. Learners wished to have these terms presented in CME programs in a consistent and easily understood format and requested a brief review of them at the beginning of CME programs. DISCUSSION: Presentation of research data in most CME programs is inadequate to allow learners to make fully informed therapeutic decisions. Speakers and learners need professional development to improve their presentation and understanding of research data.

Developing leadership in rural interprofessional palliative care teams.

This project brought together community-based practitioners and academics to develop and deliver interventions designed to enhance the leadership abilities of the designated leaders of seven rural/small town-based palliative care teams. Members of these community-based teams have already gained recognition for their teams' leadership and service delivery in their communities. All of the teams had worked closely with most members of the academic team prior to this project. The team members participated in a needs assessment exercise developed by the Sisters of Charity of Ottawa Health Service and University of Ottawa academic team. Results of the needs assessment identified leadership qualities that had contributed to their success, as well as their needs to further enhance their individual leadership qualities. The team effort, however, was the most important factor contributing to the success of their work. The interventions developed to address the identified needs had to be adapted creatively through the collaborative efforts of both the community and academic teams. The educational interventions facilitated the integration of learning at the individual and community level into the busy work schedules of primary health care providers.

Making interprofessional education work: the strategic roles of the academy.

Faculties (i.e., schools) of medicine along with their sister health discipline faculties can be important organizational vehicles to promote, cultivate, and direct interprofessional education (IPE). The authors present information they gathered in 2007 about five Canadian IPE programs to identify key factors facilitating transformational change within institutional settings toward successful IPE, including (1) how successful programs start, (2) the ways successful programs influence academia to bias toward change, and (3) the ways academia supports and perpetuates the success of programs. Initially, they examine evidence regarding key factors that facilitate IPE implementation, which include (1) common vision, values, and goal sharing, (2) opportunities for collaborative work in practice and learning, (3) professional development of faculty members, (4) individuals who are champions of IPE in practice and in organizational leadership, and (5) attention to sustainability. Subsequently, they review literature-based insights regarding barriers and challenges in IPE that must be addressed for success, including barriers and challenges (1) between professional practices, (2) between academia and the professions, and (3) between individuals and faculty members; they also discuss the social context of the participants and institutions. The authors conclude by recommending what is needed for institutions to entrench IPE into core education at three levels: micro (what individuals in the faculty can do); meso (what a faculty can promote); and macro (how academic institutions can exert its influence in the health education and practice system).