DE05 Bridging the gap: enhancing educational utility of <i>Clinical and Experimental Dermatology</i> for dermatology trainees

Abstract This cross-sectional survey evaluated the reader engagement and educational utility of the Clinical and Experimental Dermatology (CED) journal, focusing on usage patterns, audience demands and areas for improvement, particularly for dermatology registrars preparing for the Specialty Certificate Examination (SCE). Emails were disseminated to dermatology registrars across UK deaneries through regional trainee representative mailing lists. The survey was also distributed via the Scottish Dermatological Society and British Association of Dermatologists bulletin between July and December 2024. It included binary and free-text responses assessing journal usage frequency, usefulness for SCE preparation, and desired content enhancements. In total, 42 responses were analysed. Most respondents read the journal occasionally (several times a month, 45%) or rarely (less than monthly, 33%), with minimal daily readership. Review articles (64%), professional development and education content (69%) and clinical guidelines (64%) were the most helpful for exam preparation and clinical practice. Professional development and education content includes multiple-choice questions, clinical and histopathological findings, diagnosis, discussion and key learning points, accessible via the Continuing Education Portal. Original research was also valued but less frequently requested. Many trainees were unaware of advanced search tools or SCE-specific resources such as the CED Specialty Certificate Examination section. Key SCE challenges included dermatopathology, skin oncology and paediatric dermatology. Respondents expressed demand for practice questions, exam guides and video-based procedural demonstrations. Accessibility issues with digital formats were common, with many preferring print copies for ease of use and motivation. Calls for consolidated digital resources, such as eBooks or interactive question banks, were prevalent. The findings highlight the need for CED to enhance accessibility and usability for trainees by expanding SCE-specific resources, developing user-friendly digital formats, and increasing high-yield educational content. Multimedia resources, including procedural videos and interactive case-based learning, could improve engagement and align with dermatology curricula. These findings may be generalized to other UK dermatology journals with similar readership demographics. Beyond exam preparation and clinical knowledge acquisition, CED supports professional development by offering opportunities in scholarly peer review, editorial experience and academic writing – key competencies in dermatology research and education. Accessing CED online requires multiple login steps via institutional portals or British Association of Dermatologists membership verification. The transition to an online-only format may have overlooked ease of access compared with the former print edition. Addressing digital accessibility issues and reconsidering a print option could enhance engagement. This study underscores the need for CED to refine its educational offerings to better support dermatology trainees by improving digital accessibility, expanding exam-focused content, and incorporating interactive learning tools, ensuring its impact as a vital resource in dermatology training.