↓ Skip to main content

Needs assessment: towards a more responsive Canadian Society of Nephrology Annual General Meeting (CSN AGM) program

Overview of attention for article published in Canadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Needs assessment: towards a more responsive Canadian Society of Nephrology Annual General Meeting (CSN AGM) program
Published in
Canadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease, June 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40697-016-0121-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Barry A. Cohen, Mark J. Courtney, Louise M. Moist, James Barton

Abstract

A critical feature of any continuing medical education (CME) program is the inclusion of a needs assessment for its target audience. This assessment must identify both perceived and unperceived needs, so as to best capture the entire spectrum of learning opportunities for the group. We describe the process developed by the Canadian Society of Nephrology (CSN) to enhance the educational effectiveness of its Annual General Meeting program. The design of this study is the analysis of a survey questionnaire and of the Canadian Organ Replacement Registry (CORR) database. We surveyed members of the CSN and analyzed patient data from CORR aggregated by center. We tabulated votes in the survey by topic. We assessed the extent to which centers achieved CSN guideline targets on the clinical management of patients on dialysis. Perceived needs: a CSN panel constructed a list of topics, which was amplified by the inclusion of topics based on members' text responses to open-ended questions during previous iterations of this process. CSN members specified their top five choices, using an online survey instrument. Unperceived needs: an expert panel determined achievable thresholds for a number of quality metrics associated with dialysis. The quality metrics were identified from CSN guidelines. Using patient data in the CORR database, we generated center-specific performance estimates for each quality metric and constructed ratios comparing the performance of each center with the achievable threshold. We triangulated the results of the two assessments. The response rate for the perceived needs assessment survey was 16 %. This assessment identified "Primary and Secondary Glomerulonephritis" as the non-dialysis topics and "Infectious Complications of Dialysis Access" and "Volume Status and Hypertension on Dialysis" as the dialysis topics with the highest perceived learning needs. In the unperceived needs assessment, "Vascular Access Type" and "Vascular Access Monitoring" were identified as having the highest learning needs. Triangulation identified "Vascular Access Type" and "Vascular Access Monitoring" as high needs topics. Perceived needs assessment: Some topics were much more general than others, which could have led to over-selection. The response rate of 16 % limits the robustness of generalization to the membership as a whole or to all meeting attendees. Unperceived needs assessment: The assessment was limited by the data that CORR actually collects; many aspects of general nephrology practice, including glomerulonephritis, are not covered. The level of evidence underlying the various guidelines was variable, and in some cases, poor. A validated approach to data analysis in this area is lacking. To our knowledge, this is the first published example of a needs assessment for a nephrology CME event that considers both the perceived and unperceived needs of the membership. The results of this exercise are currently being used to assist in the development of a more responsive CME program.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 28%
Other 3 17%
Student > Bachelor 2 11%
Student > Postgraduate 2 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 17%
Social Sciences 3 17%
Psychology 1 6%
Design 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 January 2017.
All research outputs
#20,656,820
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Canadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease
#567
of 620 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#284,211
of 368,661 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Canadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease
#11
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 620 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 368,661 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.