Functional neurological disorders: effective teaching for health professionals, 2021, Lehn et al

Objectives To provide an outline for the delivery of an educational course or lecture about functional neurological disorders (FND) that is directed towards health professionals with varying clinical knowledge and to highlight the educational efficacy that can be derived from a well-designed educational platform.

Method Through multidisciplinary collaboration, a course designed to develop the skills for diagnosis and management of FND was created. Elements essential to the delivery of education are: (A) knowledge creation; (B) facilitating multidisciplinary cross-pollination; (C) listening to patients’ experiences; (D) communication skills practice; (E) case studies; (F) discipline specific mentoring; (G) establishing and addressing participant learning goals and (H) developing collegial and referral networks. Changes in participants’ knowledge and clinical practice were assessed via anonymous questionnaires before and after the course.

Results Dramatically improved knowledge and confidence in assessment and management of people with FND has been found both immediately following the course as well as on 6-month follow-up.

Conclusion It is possible to make real change in the understanding and management of medical and allied health clinicians working with people with FND with a low-cost intervention. Also, the development of educational networks and multidisciplinary collaboration can lead to the creation of therapeutic platforms for the diagnosis, management and advocacy of this patient group.

https://neurologyopen.bmj.com/content/2/1/e000065

 

One thing I'm confused about is whether it is normal for there to be research studies about whether it is possible to teach something to other professionals. That doesn't seem normal at all, in any field or context. There is no confusion over the fact that it is feasible to teach professionals about things, especially not trivial things devoid of substance as here. And yet it is literally a hot topic in psychosomatics, one of the most common themes in fact. They are obsessed with how others think of their work, likely knowing it's completely hollow but not caring much about what this massive insecurity means.

It's like all those pilot studies of "can we do intervention X where X consists of participants drinking a glass of water" or other trivial things that no one is confused whether it is feasible or not. Chalder alone has authored at least a baker's dozen. They all seem designed to manufacture consent and nothing else, putting out quantity of evidence with zero concern for whether there is even a need for it.

Is that a thing? A long drawn-out process for every bit of information that is taught? I'm fairly sure that's not the case, that at no point was there any confusion about whether it is feasible, to the point of needing a study, or even several studies over several years, to teach medical students about, say, the vasculature or new findings supplementary to standard training. The process of teaching people things is frankly pretty much a settled thing and it is especially bizarre that they happen to be on the most trivial things like "can we get people in a room and get them to talk? Who knows whether that's even possible?".

Especially when they take the form of "let's teach X then assess whether a small quizz can confirm that X was indeed taught". This seems about as useful as when they punish soldiers in the military with mopping outside under the rain, busywork of no value other than to bring more work of no value.

 

alternative conclusion it is possible to con supposedly educated people into believing pretty much anything if there is some financial\career reward involved . how to drag medicine back to the dark ages and be well paid in the process .