Quality indicators for medical education podcasts and blogs as recommended by Lin et al15
| Per cent consensus | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quality indicator | Domain/subtheme | How this was met | Podcasts | Blogs |
| Do the authorities (eg, author, editor, publisher) that created the resource list their conflicts of interest? | Credibility/bias | There was no conflict of interest. | 100 | 100 |
| Is the information presented in the resource accurate? | Credibility/academic rigour | References were provided for the podcast content. | 100 | 94 |
| Is the identity of the resource's author clear? | Credibility/transparency | The blog and podcast included details of the affiliation and qualifications of ACN. | 95 | 95 |
| Does the resource make a clear distinction between fact and opinion? | Credibility/bias | The podcast and blog provided details of what constituted fact and opinion. References were provided for the podcast content. | 95 | 95 |
| Does the resource employ technologies that are universally available to allow learners with standard equipment and software access? | Design/functionality | The podcast was accessible using standard technologies (computer and mobiles devices) without the requirement of additional software or payment. | 94 | – |
| Does the resource clearly differentiate between advertisement and content? | Credibility/bias | The podcast was freely available and was produced without commercial funding or advertising. | 90 | 95 |
| Is the resource transparent about who was involved in its creation? | Credibility/transparency | Podcast production was performed by ACN. Contributions of others were clearly acknowledged. | 90 | 91 |
| Is the content of this educational resource of good quality? | Content | The podcasts were edited to enhance audio quality. | 90 | 91 |
| Is the content of the resource professional? | Content/professionalism | Each episode was planned and researched in advance to ensure the content was accurate and professional. | 90 | 91 |
| Is the resource useful and relevant for its intended audience? | Content/orientation | The podcast format consisted of interviews, opinion pieces and education-focused activity. The podcast was aimed at palliative care professionals who were familiar with social media. | 90 | 91 |
| Does the resource cite its references? | Credibility/use of other resources | References were provided for the podcast content. | – | 93 |
| Are the resources consistent with its references? | Credibility/use of other resources | References were provided for the podcast content. | – | 93 |
| Is the author well qualified to provide information on the topic? | Credibility/transparency | The blog and podcast included details of the affiliation and qualifications of ACN. | – | 91 |