1605 - Efficacy and Satisfaction of a Redesigned Journal Club in PM&R: Perception of the Trainees

This was an educational intervention, among 24 PM&R residents. Pre-survey was conducted in June 2024, the intervention in the 2024-25 academic year, and post-survey in June 2025. The survey’s response rate was 75.0% (19 of 24) for both pre- and post-intervention. The main intervention was changing previous JC structure from three to two articles and increasing the number of faculty moderators from one to two. The survey had 19 questions, most of them using a Likert scale. Four questions covered JC satisfaction (i.e., overall quality, selection of themes and moderators, and JC format). Nine questions covered JC effectiveness (e.g. Our JC “contributes to my medical education, “improves my ability to appraise medical literature”). The paired t-test was used to compare the satisfaction and efficacy of JC formats.

Results:

The participants self-reported an average of 9 hours preparing for JC, regardless of the format. The pre- and post-mean satisfaction scores were 3.95 and 4.20, respectively (p=0.008). The highest rated pre- and post-satisfaction question was for “the selection of themes”. The pre- and post-mean effectiveness scores were 4.22 and 4.36, respectively (p=0.001). The highest rated pre-effectiveness question was “Our JC improves my confidence to present in front of people” and post-effectiveness question was “Our JC engages in scholarly debate and discussion.” When asked “If JC was optional and not mandatory, would you still attend it”, 68% participants responded “yes” pre-intervention and 76% responded “yes” post-intervention. When asked if “Post-JC feedback and scores are valuable to me”, 79% participants “somewhat agreed” or “strongly agreed” pre-intervention and 88% “somewhat agreed” or “strongly agreed” post-intervention.

Conclusions:

Compared to the old format, the modified format had a higher quality and value, and a higher desire to attend JC as perceived by participants.