Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
EDITOR We have organised our journal club around a debate team format.
Firstly, we provide instruction on literature evaluation and use
the articles by Trisha Greenhalgh in the BMJ as background reading.
2 3
Secondly, two interns pick an article of choice, and a senior resident
approves the selections. The senior resident is also the referee of the
debate. He or she comes to the journal club equipped with a referee
shirt, whistle, and stopwatch. The attendees are randomly assigned to
one of two teams. We have pro and con sides for each article and two
debatable questions per article. These questions are carefully chosen
to ensure that all skills necessary to evaluate literature are taught.
The teams meet briefly to develop their strategies, and then the fun
begins. Of course the referee with his whistle and stopwatch ends
deliberations promptly.
The evaluations from residents and attendees on this format have
been overwhelmingly positive. We have seen increased participation from
formerly silent individuals, and the club is not only educational but fun.
Gibbons described how to make a journal club experience
potentially more successful.1 His highly structured
approach to the traditional journal club format is certainly a
necessary ingredient for success. Many of the problems with the
traditional approach, such as monopolisation of the discussion by a few
individuals, failure to read the article, and incredibly dry and boring
Microsoft PowerPoint presentations are not, however, solved by this approach.
Department of Medicine, Memorial Medical Center, 1086 Franklin
Street, Johnstown, PA 15905, USA lgonzal{at}conemaugh.org
| 1. | Gibbons AJ. Organising a successful journal club. BMJ 2002; 325(suppl): S137. (2 November.) |
| 2. |
Greenhalgh T.
How to read a paper: Getting your bearings (deciding what the paper is about).
BMJ
1997;
315:
243-246 |
| 3. |
Greenhalgh T, Taylor R.
How to read a paper: Papers that go beyond numbers (qualitative research).
BMJ
1997;
315:
740-743 |