Iterative approach to journal club

Abstract

To identify, evaluate and refine a journal club (JC) format that increases faculty and resident engagement. An initial needs assessment followed by a trial of three JC formats: traditional single presenter, debate style and facilitated small group discussion was piloted over 6 months. Anonymous feedback was collected. The facilitated small group format was chosen. Narrative and quantitative feedback were collected from residents and faculty at 6-month intervals for the next 24 months. Changes to the format were made using feedback. Fourteen residents (n=20, 70%) and 10 faculty (n=20, 50%) completed baseline surveys. We initially observed low resident (8/14, 57%) interest in JCs. Additionally, 9/14 (64%) of residents and 1/15 (7%) of faculty reported low confidence presenting articles publicly. After implementation of the new JC format, resident reported enjoyment, on a scale of 1–5, improved from 3.6 to 4.4 (p<0.01). We observed improvement in resident confidence in the ability to critique a paper (2.7 to 4.1, p<0.01) and in confidence speaking in front of both peers (3.8 to 4.6, p<0.01) and faculty (3.0 to 3.8, p=0.04). Faculty confidence with literature critique decreased (from 4.2 to 3.8), but enjoyment remained stable (4.3 to 4.2). A facilitated small group JC format was preferred in our programme. We observed measurable improvements in both resident interest and confidence, as well as sustained faculty interest in JCs. We fostered an environment of inquiry and identified areas of continued professional development.

Perception of journal club seminars by medical doctoral students: results from five years of evaluation

“… JC as a cognitive tool to improve critical thinking [ 12 ], [ 18 ], [ 19 ], [ 20 ], [ 21 ] and evidence-based skills [ 22 ], [ 23 ], [ 24 ], [ 25 ], [ 26 ], [ 27 ]; strategies to improve the effectiveness of JC [ 28 ], [ 29 ], [ 30 ], [ 31 ], [ 32 ]; and new approaches to carry out JC [ 8 ], [ 33 ], [ 34 ], [ 35 ], [ 36 ], [ 37 ], [ 38 ]. …”