Program delivery required partnering with 5 organizations. Participants valued Courriels Cochrane. IAM ratings documented their reflective learning. The aggregation of IAM ratings documented 3 levels of CME outcomes: participation, learning, and performance. This evaluation study demonstrates the feasibility of the Courriels Cochrane as an approach to further disseminate Cochrane systematic literature reviews to clinicians and document self-reported knowledge translation associated with Cochrane reviews.

I Objective:To evaluate the impact of an interactive continuing medical education workshop designed to help physicians in breaking bad news to their patients. Methodology: Analysis of post-workshop questionnaires from 539 physicians assessing the retention of the key concepts and the perception of the potential impact of the workshop on their practice immediately after the workshop and six months later. Results: The most significant concepts retained by the respondents are: the need to take into consideration the whole patient (42.7% post-workshop and 45.6% of follow-up responses), the need to be prepared for the consultation (11.6% and 15%), the importance of better gUiding the interview (18.8% and 13.6%), and the value of taking more time during the consultation (5.8% and 8.3%). Analysis of paired responses on the post-workshop and the follow-up questionnaires shows that 35% of the concepts retained are identical. Conclusion:The majority of physicians retained the key concepts, both immediately following the workshop and in the longer term. Resume I Objectif: Evaluer I'impact d'un atelier de travail interactif dispense dans Ie cadre de formation rnedlcale continue pour aider les medeclns it annoncer de mauvaises nouvelles it leurs patients. Methodologie : Analyser les questionnaires remplis par 539 medecins, lmmediatement apres I'atelier et six mois plus tard afin d'avaluer Ie degre de memorisation des concepts-olea et leur perception de I'impact de cet atelier sur leur pratique. Resultats: Les concepts les plus significatifs retenus par les participants apres I'atelier et six mois plus tard sont les suivants : la necesslte de considerer Ie patient dans sa totallte (42.7 % et 45.6 %), la necessite de se preparer avant la consultation (11.6 % et 15 %), I'importance de mieux diriger I'interview (18.8 % et 13.6 %) et I'avantage de prendre plus de temps lors de la consultation. Lorsqu'on accouple les reponses des deux questionnaires I'analyse demontre que 35 % des concepts retenus demeurent les memes. Conclusion: La majortte des rnedeclns ont retenu les concepts-cles tant it la suite de I'atelier que six mois plus tard.

No abstract

ike many of you, I attended Family Medicine Forum (FMF), held by the College of Family Physicians of Canada (CFPC) from November 10 to 13, 2021. It is one of the most important gatherings of family physicians in the country, if not the largest. Every year, the conference is held in one of Canada's major cities. As Associate Scientific Editor of Canadian Family Physician, I have been attending for the past 20 years.Attended is perhaps too strong a word, as FMF was actually held virtually both this past year and in 2020 owing to the pandemic. That means that the entire conference-taking place over 4 days-was conducted over video. Like many, I am not a big fan of Zoom and other virtual meetings, but it allowed us to watch and rewatch all sessions included in the program. It was a good way to keep us up to date.But as the conference went on, a question kept nagging at me: How many sessions were held in French? I am obviously not referring to simultaneous interpretation, but to sessions originally presented in French.Note that, according to the latest available data, approximately 10 000 of Canada's 45 532 family physicians are Francophones, 1-3 which is almost 25%. In Quebec alone, there are 11 668 family physicians, 85.8%

No abstract