Form #3 Form #3 Interview guide for faculty members

(

Form Approved
OMB No. 0935-XXXX
Exp. Date XX/XX/20XX

Attachment C)

Interview Questions for CME Faculty

Notes: Interviewer will begin by asking the respondent to briefly describe his/her understanding of the EPC Program and products. Throughout the interview, respondents will be prompted to explain and elaborate upon their answers. Some items may not be relevant based on prior responses and will be omitted or revised as needed.

1. To begin with, I would like to ask you about your level of familiarity with the EHC products prior to participating in this study.

   1. Have you used any of these products previously? In what ways?

2. Can you describe how you used the EHC products, or the content from these products, in your CME activity?

   1. Which products did you use?

   2. Can you tell me how the products were selected?

   3. Were the EHC materials distributed or only used in preparing the curriculum?

3. Did you make any modifications to the products or their content to incorporate them into the CME activity?

   1. What changes were made?

   2. Why were they needed?

   3. How was fidelity ensured?

4. How did you find the scope of the EHC topics?

   1. Too narrow or too broad?

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 30 minutes per response, the estimated time required to complete the survey. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to: AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer Attention: PRA, Paperwork Reduction Project (0935-XXXX) AHRQ, 540 Gaither Road, Room # 5036, Rockville, MD 20850.

5. Now I would like to ask your opinion about the usefulness of these products.

   1. Were there some products that you found particularly useful? Why?

   2. Were there some products or parts of products that you found less useful? Why? (e.g., no products available for activity content; not seen as useful/applicable to target audience; product delivery issues)

   3. In your opinion/Based on your experience, are there any ways in which these products could be improved? (e.g., easier to use by faculty, more useful to learners)

6. To what extent do you see the EHC products as credible and useful in understanding the available research in areas targeted by the products?

   1. What about for identifying gaps and barriers in the evidence base? (e.g., determining effectiveness in subgroups)

7. How would you compare the information in these products (and the products themselves) to other sources of information that you have used in the past?

   1. Are they more or less useful?

8. Now in thinking about your presentation, can you tell me about the amount of time that was spent discussing the EHC products and information, and the amount of time spent discussing any other products?

   1. Why was this approach taken?

   2. Did you do anything to highlight or downplay the EHC products? Were the EHC products featured prominently during the discussion, or moved into the background in discussing research results?

   3. How did you present the EHC levels of evidence in the context of other studies or reviews that were also discussed?

   4. Did you mention the specific levels of evidence in describing each result, or refer to the evidence ratings more generally?

9. Finally I would like to ask you about the audience. How do you think the audience received the information about the EHC products?

   1. Did you get a sense of whether the audience understood, and found useful, the information that was presented?

   2. Did you get any sense of the audience perceptions of the EHC Program itself?

10. To conclude, are there any ways in which these products could be improved for use in CME programming?

    1. Are there any ways to make them easier to use by faculty?

    2. Are there any ways to make them more useful to the audience?

    3. Are there any enabling tools or support structures that would be needed?