RTI uses cookies to offer you the best experience online. By clicking “accept” on this website, you opt in and you agree to the use of cookies. If you would like to know more about how RTI uses cookies and how to manage them please view our Privacy Policy here. You can “opt out” or change your mind by visiting: http://optout.aboutads.info/. Click “accept” to agree.
Pediatrician perspectives on learning and practice change in the MOCA-Peds 2017 pilot
Turner, A., Olmsted, M. G., Smith, A. C., Dounoucos, V., Bradford, A., Althouse, L., & Leslie, L. K. (2019). Pediatrician perspectives on learning and practice change in the MOCA-Peds 2017 pilot. Pediatrics, 144(6), Article 20192305. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2019-2305
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: This article is the second of a 2-part series examining results regarding self-reported learning and practice change from the American Board of Pediatrics 2017 pilot of an alternative to the proctored, continuing certification examination, termed the Maintenance of Certification Assessment for Pediatrics (MOCA-Peds). Because of its design, MOCA-Peds has several learning advantages compared with the proctored examination.
METHODS: Quantitative and qualitative analyses with 5081 eligible pediatricians who registered to participate in the 2017 pilot; 81.4% (
n = 4016) completed a quarter 4 survey and/or the end-of-year survey (January 2018) and compose the analytic sample.
RESULTS: Nearly all (97.6%) participating pediatricians said they had learned, refreshed, or enhanced their medical knowledge, and of those, 62.0% had made a practice change related to pilot participation. Differences were noted on the basis of subspecialty status, with 68.9% of general pediatricians having made a practice change compared with 41.4% of subspecialists. Within the 1456 open-ended responses about participants' most significant practice change, responses ranged widely, including both medical care content (eg, "care for corneal abrasions altered," "better inform patients about. . .flu vaccine") and nonspecific content (eg, providing better patient education, using evidence-based medicine, increased use of resources in regular practice).
CONCLUSIONS: As a proctored examination alternative, MOCA-Peds positively influenced self-reported learning and practice change. In future evaluation of MOCA-Peds and other medical longitudinal assessments, researchers should study ways to further encourage learning and practice change and sustainability.
