Ere consolidated into three, as some groups were not as active within the on the internet discussion. The groups had been, hence, collapsed so as to have slightly larger groups to create more discussion within every group. There had been 22 distinct modules, every lasting 14 days. Modules focused on: geriatric psychiatry (e.g., anticholinergic drugs and inappropriate medicines; key psychotic disorders; sleep troubles and problems; anxiety problems; pharmacotherapy of depression; non-pharmacological remedy of neuropsychiatric symptoms of dementia; aging and psychopharmacology; epidemiology), palliative care in geriatric psychiatry, psychosocial problems (e.g., consent, elder abuse, caregiver distress, care in nursing residence and neighborhood outreach settings), and psychotherapy (e.g., dynamic therapy with bereavement along with other non-expert roles of geriatric psychiatrists; cognitive behavioral, interpersonal and group therapy). A final module entitled “Other Topics” incorporated suggestions on the group and allowed an opportunity to talk about with peers along with the organizing group other subjects or concerns not currently covered. For every module, a facilitator (i.e., geriatric psychiatrist) encouraged two current overview papers and 1 major study paper in geriatric psychiatry. Immediately after completing assigned readings, participants logged into theportal to take part in 4 unique discussion boards or “rooms” inside their “group web page.” The initial room contained short-answer queries covering necessary components of your module’s topic. The second focused on reflection and discussion of broader concepts and controversies. The third was a journal club to critically appraise a topical empirical paper. Inside the fourth, “Clinical Corner,” participants discussed a difficult case supplied by the facilitator or PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21310042 themselves, or asked the facilitator and their peers queries about topics they have “always-wanted-to-know-about-but-were-afraidto-ask.” Audio or video recordings and electronic presentations from a current parallel didactic lecture series had been offered to participants. More than time, in response to feedback, the faculty began to offer you “official answers” at the end of each and every module. References have been supplied prior to each and every module to permit far more preparation time. Institutional study ethics board granted ethics approval. Study Design and style and Data Analysis Members of your CAGP’s other companion organizations had been invited by e mail to take part in the OSG. The 2012013 inaugural plan was evaluated working with (a) retrospective Apigenol post-thenpre design and style to enable participants to reflect on what they discovered, therefore decreasing the response shift bias that may be associated with selfreport measures, and (b) post-test only design. Information were collected working with a web-based survey administered to all participants. The retrospective post-then-pre-design survey assessed program effects in 3 essential domains: (a) self-efficacy (participants’ self-confidence in their capacity to pass the geriatric psychiatry exam), (b) information in geriatric psychiatry (participants’ perceived expertise with the assessment and treatment of geriatric psychiatric issues), and (c) comfort level with online learning. Each domain was measured utilizing 3 to six products, rated on a five-point Likert scale (strongly disagree, disagree, neither agree nor disagree, agree, strongly agree). Analysis of items within the domains demonstrated sufficient reliability (Cronbach’s =0.70[a]; =0.92[b]; =0.73[c]). Wilcoxon signed-rank tests had been cal.