Cochrane vignettes: use of Cochrane Reviews in a Cochrane learning continuing medical education program

Article type
Authors
Moja L1, Becker L2, Bjerre LM3, Chande N4, Grad R5, Kwag K6, Leontiadis GI7, Lewin G8, Moayyedi P7, Ni Ogain O9, Pentesco-Gilbert D10, Pussegoda K11, Sapko MT12, Schaafsma ME11, Tugwell P13, Ueffing E11, Urquhart B10, Tovey D9, Grimshaw JM11
1University of Milan, IRCCS Orthopedic Institute Galeazzi
2Department of Family Medicine, SUNY Upstate Medical University
3Department of Family Medicine, University of Ottawa; Department of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, University of Ottawa; Bruyere Research Institute
4Division of Gastroenterlogy, Western University
5Department of Family Medicine, University of McGill; Herzl Family Practice Centre
6University of Milan, Mario Negri Institute for Pharmacological Research
7Department of Medicine, McMaster University
8Department of Family Medicine, University of Ottawa
9Cochrane Editorial Unit
10Wiley-Blackwell
11Canadian Cochrane Centre, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute
12Sapko Medical Writing
13University of Ottawa, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine; Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Clinical Epidemiology Program; University of Ottawa, Department of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine; Institute of Population Health, University of Ottawa
Abstract
Background: One of missions of the Cochrane Collaboration is to promote access to its outputs. Although the Collaboration has emphasised the role of online continuing medical education (CME) in the dissemination of systematic review (SR) findings, it has not proposed specific strategies for the incorporation of SR contents into CME programs.

Objectives: We developed a suite of online CME modules targeting Canadian family physicians based upon Cochrane SRs.

Methods: The CME modules are based upon published Cochrane SRs addressing gastrointestinal, back, inflammatory bowel, and musculoskeletal conditions. Each module includes five multiple choice questions plus a fictional and memorable vignette featuring ‘Dr. Cochrane’. Vignettes are produced through a multi-step editorial process to ensure scientific, editorial, and educational rigour. This process conforms to the requirements of several CME accreditation authorities in North America. We reviewed the experience of the editorial unit who completed the program.

Results: To date, 64 Cochrane vignettes have been developed. Abstracts, Summary of Findings Tables, and primary results were the sections of Cochrane SRs most useful for developing CME activities; methods and secondary results sections were rarely used. The relevance of certain reviews for primary care and educational purposes was challenged during peer review, and a few vignettes raised questions of the social, cultural, and clinical suitability of interventions and patient-physician interactions. We also encountered tensions between the accreditation requirements and the design of the Dr Cochrane programme, most of which were solved to meet the accreditation criteria.

Conclusions: CME programs represent an opportunity to improve the relevance and accessibility of Cochrane SRs to health professionals. Progress in the development and dissemination of Cochrane-based CME programs will require innovation leadership, sufficient resources to maintain top scientific and editorial standards and the expansion to other countries and health professionals. Funding Sources: A CIHR Knowledge Translation Supplement Grant provided funding.