UDLCO CRH: Getting uptodated and tracing the roots with URL links of our current conversational peer review commentary strategy

Summary: A chance inquiry in a health IT group ignited past memories of a conversational paper and allowed tracing of how certain shared learning communication strategies such as conversational peer review commentaries that we often engage with these days, were initially cognitively seeded over time.

Key words: 

Conversational peer review commentaries 

Up-to-date

EBM

GBM

Medical cognition

Blended learning ecosystem 

CRH: https://medicinedepartment.blogspot.com/2024/10/critical-realist-pedagogy-and-theatre.html?m=1

https://medicinedepartment.blogspot.com/2024/11/udlco-large-group-interactive-lecture.html?m=1

UDLCO glossary:https://userdrivenhealthcare.blogspot.com/2023/11/glossary-of-user-driven-healthcare.html?m=1

Current nostalgia activating conversational transcripts:

[16/03, 11:49] AC: For clinicians / surgeons (?) : what is the typical amount of time you spend with UpToDate per day?

Which sections do you find most useful?

Sample of what their sections look like (sections are in all caps)

Outline

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

MANAGEMENT AND DM PHENOTYPE

Congenital DM1

Childhood DM1

Classic DM1

Mild DM1

DM2

SPECIFIC MANAGEMENT ISSUES

Muscle involvement

....

LIFE EXPECTANCY

SOCIETY GUIDELINE LINKS

INFORMATION FOR PATIENTS

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

REFERENCES

GRAPHICS

[16/03, 12:42] rb : Used to in 2000-2004 when GBM ruled but once EBM started getting a stronger foothold into our medical cognitive space had to let go of up-to-date and rely more on critical realist heutagogy and interestingly this was also signposted in an EBM publication sometime in 2006 and I quote my 2006 self:

"EBM stands the danger of getting increasingly divorced from practical realities. One reason for this may be because most physicians treat the evidence in journals as black boxes and just gulp whatever is fed to them (again is it often just because of the time constraints?). What is needed is understandable evidence that is not only just dressed up fast food but also tells us how the evidence was collected/synthesized in an "understandable real world language". Most clinicians are skeptical of evidence from studies because they keep changing so very rapidly almost turning 180 degrees at times that suggests that many of them were faulty or our interpretations were faulty to start with (all that observational beliefs getting swept away by RCTs etc) . However clinicians are helpless as they are unable to interpret the evidence.²"

Although it was published in an indexed EBM journal as a conversational commentary, the conversations can be fully accessed here through the real time list archives all saved since 25 years! 👇

https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wa-jisc.exe?A2=ind0608&L=EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH&P=R7246

The subsequent publication available here: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17213138/, https://ebm.bmj.com/content/11/5/133.long and while this is restricted access one can find the entire paper draft in the archived EBM UK list serv linked earlier.

Other conversational commentary papers full text:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6103343/

https://journals.lww.com/mjdy/fulltext/2019/12030/invited_commentary__a_patient_of_pulmonary.20.aspx