TY - JOUR
T1 - Listen to your heart
T2 - a critical analysis of popular cardiology podcasts
AU - Kamalanathan, Harish
AU - Hains, Lewis
AU - Bacchi, Stephen
AU - Martin, Wrivu N.
AU - Zaka, Ammar
AU - Slattery, Flynn
AU - Kovoor, Joshua G.
AU - Gupta, Aashray K.
AU - Psaltis, Peter
AU - Kovoor, Pramesh
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
Copyright © 2024 Kamalanathan, Hains, Bacchi, Martin, Zaka, Slattery, Kovoor, Gupta, Psaltis and Kovoor.
PY - 2024/7/15
Y1 - 2024/7/15
N2 - Purpose: Podcasts are an increasingly popular medium for medical education in the field of cardiology. However, evidence suggests that the quality of the information presented can be variable. The aim of our study was to assess the quality of the most popular cardiology podcasts on existing podcast streaming services, using tools designed to grade online medical education. Results: We analyzed the five most recent episodes from 28 different popular cardiology podcasts as of 20th of September, 2022 using the validated rMETRIQ and JAMA scoring tools. The median podcast length was 20 min and most episodes were hosted by professors, subspecialty discussants or consultant physicians (87.14%). Although most episodes had only essential content (85%), only a small proportion of episodes provided detailed references (12.9%), explicitly identified conflicts of interest (30.7%), described a review process (13.6%), or provided a robust discussion of the podcast's content (13.6%). We observed no consistent relationship between episode length, seniority of host or seniority of guest speaker with rMETRIQ or JAMA scores. Conclusions: Cardiology podcasts are a valuable remote learning tool for clinicians. However, the reliability, relevance, and transparency of information provided on cardiology podcasts varies widely. Streamlined standards for evaluation are needed to improve podcast quality.
AB - Purpose: Podcasts are an increasingly popular medium for medical education in the field of cardiology. However, evidence suggests that the quality of the information presented can be variable. The aim of our study was to assess the quality of the most popular cardiology podcasts on existing podcast streaming services, using tools designed to grade online medical education. Results: We analyzed the five most recent episodes from 28 different popular cardiology podcasts as of 20th of September, 2022 using the validated rMETRIQ and JAMA scoring tools. The median podcast length was 20 min and most episodes were hosted by professors, subspecialty discussants or consultant physicians (87.14%). Although most episodes had only essential content (85%), only a small proportion of episodes provided detailed references (12.9%), explicitly identified conflicts of interest (30.7%), described a review process (13.6%), or provided a robust discussion of the podcast's content (13.6%). We observed no consistent relationship between episode length, seniority of host or seniority of guest speaker with rMETRIQ or JAMA scores. Conclusions: Cardiology podcasts are a valuable remote learning tool for clinicians. However, the reliability, relevance, and transparency of information provided on cardiology podcasts varies widely. Streamlined standards for evaluation are needed to improve podcast quality.
KW - cardiology
KW - cardiology learning
KW - cardiology podcasts
KW - medical education
KW - medical education podcasts
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85200368509&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3389/fmed.2024.1278449
DO - 10.3389/fmed.2024.1278449
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85200368509
SN - 2296-858X
VL - 11
JO - Frontiers in Medicine
JF - Frontiers in Medicine
M1 - 1278449
ER -