INTRODUCTION: As part of continuing certification, the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ABOG) diplomates complete article-based assessments annually. Diplomates read articles, respond to article questions, and must score above a certain threshold to demonstrate competence in their understanding. There is a paucity of evidence that diplomates retain the information after reading articles. The study objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of the two question types (understanding and application) at measuring diplomates’ retention of knowledge over time. METHODS: A sample of 344 diplomates who chose selected articles between January-March 2019 volunteered for the study. Diplomates completed article questions in a business-as-usual setting (with article access) and were assessed again during summer 2019 (without article access). Each participant received 2 questions (one of each type) from 5 of the selected articles, for a total of 10 questions. The timed summer assessment was used as a proxy for retention. Diplomates’ scores, by item type, from each assessment setting were compared using a t-test to determine whether information was retained from the articles. RESULTS: The information assessed by application items was retained at a significantly higher rate (80.58%) than understanding items (60.75%), as demonstrated by mean scores on the assessment (P<.05). CONCLUSION: Application items yielded a higher knowledge retention rate. Understanding items ensure diplomates comprehend the article while application questions ensure diplomates can generalize and apply their understanding from the article. A combination of both item types for article-based assessments is necessary and this study demonstrates that diplomates retain the information they read from articles.
Objectives: Pharmaceutical reimbursement in Ireland is governed by agreements between the pharmaceutical representative organisation, the Irish Pharmaceutical Healthcare Association (IPHA), and the state-run Health Service Executive (HSE). The current agreement runs from 2016 to 2020 [IPHA/HSE Framework Agreement on the Supply and Pricing of Medicines]. We explored the effects of two previously completed agreements (commenced 2006 and 2012) on health technology assessment (HTA) submissions in Ireland. MethOds: A descriptive analysis was conducted, using publicly available information on HTA submissions since 2009, when the National Centre for Pharmacoeconomics (NCPE) introduced a rapid review (RR) process. A full HTA submission may be requested following RR. A total of 289 RR submissions were made during the period 2009 -2016 [2009 to 2012 (A1) and 2012 to 2016 (A2)]. Submissions were examined to identify assessment process patterns, disease areas and sponsor IPHA membership. Results: The number of RR requests available for analysis increased between agreements (A1: n= 93; A2: n= 193). The rate of requests for full HTA following RR submission increased (A1: 56%; A2: 62%). A reduction in the rate of HTAs submitted following request was observed (A1: 79%; A2: 60%). Applications where a HTA was requested, but not submitted, and ultimately lead to reimbursement occurred with increasing frequency in the A2 period compared to A1. The main disease areas submitted for RR (neoplasm, endocrine, circulation, and infections) remained similar between agreements, with a notable increase in the proportion of cancer therapies (A1: 15%; A2: 29%). There was no correlation between the rate of completed HTA submissions and IPHA membership. cOnclusiOns: The trends in assessment display a modest increase in the rate of full HTA requests. However, the rate of completion of submitted HTAs has decreased, suggesting that the negotiation route post-RR, which is now formalised in the 2016 agreement, is a viable route to reimbursement.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.