4.6 Article

'WhatsApp®' ening in nephrology training

期刊

CLINICAL KIDNEY JOURNAL
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 8-13

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ckj/sfz045

关键词

fellowship; nephrology education; renal fellowship; social media; texting; WhatsApp (R)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Teaching methods in most residency and fellowship programs have not yet addressed the challenges of rapid dissemination of new scientific information. Our Northwell nephrology fellowship program used the smartphone application WhatsApp (R) to facilitate nephrology education. A qualitative study was conducted to explore perceptions of nephrology fellows and faculty using WhatsApp (R) as a teaching tool. Methods. A WhatsApp (R) messenger group called Northwell Renal Forum' was created in 2018, which included all eight fellows and seven selected faculty members. Multiple choice questions on various nephrology topics were posted, about one to two per week. Fellows responded at their leisure. After 7 months, data were analyzed following two 1-h focus groups (one for faculty and one for fellows). Focus groups were moderated by two qualitative researchers, unknown to the participants, who asked open-ended questions about the WhatsApp (R) learning approach. Results. Faculty feedback was generally positive. Three major themes arose: control over learning material, comfort being fostered between faculty and fellows and faculty perceptions of fellows. The fellows also reported an overall positive experience. Control and comfort were themes again identified in this focus group. Fellows reported feeling control over which faculty member was in the group and when to respond to questions. Fellows also felt comfort from learning without pressure. Variety was the third theme that arose. Conclusion. Focus group evaluations elucidated the strengths of using WhatsApp (R), and the overall positive experience of both faculty and fellows. This inexpensive and easy-to-use tool can augment the learning of nephrology during fellowship.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据