Game-based learning to improve diagnostic accuracy: a pilot randomized-controlled trial.

IF 2.2 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Diagnosis Pub Date : 2024-01-30 eCollection Date: 2024-05-01 DOI:10.1515/dx-2023-0133
Daniel J Morgan, Laura Scherer, Lisa Pineles, Jon Baghdadi, Larry Magder, Kerri Thom, Christina Koch, Nick Wilkins, Mike LeGrand, Deborah Stevens, Renee Walker, Beth Shirrell, Anthony D Harris, Deborah Korenstein
{"title":"Game-based learning to improve diagnostic accuracy: a pilot randomized-controlled trial.","authors":"Daniel J Morgan, Laura Scherer, Lisa Pineles, Jon Baghdadi, Larry Magder, Kerri Thom, Christina Koch, Nick Wilkins, Mike LeGrand, Deborah Stevens, Renee Walker, Beth Shirrell, Anthony D Harris, Deborah Korenstein","doi":"10.1515/dx-2023-0133","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Perform a pilot study of online game-based learning (GBL) using natural frequencies and feedback to teach diagnostic reasoning.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a multicenter randomized-controlled trial of computer-based training. We enrolled medical students, residents, practicing physicians and nurse practitioners. The intervention was a 45 min online GBL training vs. control education with a primary outcome of score on a scale of diagnostic accuracy (composed of 10 realistic case vignettes, requesting estimates of probability of disease after a test result, 0-100 points total).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 90 participants there were 30 students, 30 residents and 30 practicing clinicians. Of these 62 % (56/90) were female and 52 % (47/90) were white. Sixty were randomized to GBL intervention and 30 to control. The primary outcome of diagnostic accuracy immediately after training was better in GBL (mean accuracy score 59.4) vs. control (37.6), p=0.0005. The GBL group was then split evenly (30, 30) into no further intervention or weekly emails with case studies. Both GBL groups performed better than control at one-month and some continued effect at three-month follow up. Scores at one-month GBL (59.2) GBL plus emails (54.2) vs. control (33.9), p=0.024; three-months GBL (56.2), GBL plus emails (42.9) vs. control (35.1), p=0.076. Most participants would recommend GBL to colleagues (73 %), believed it was enjoyable (92 %) and believed it improves test interpretation (95 %).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this pilot study, a single session with GBL nearly doubled score on a scale of diagnostic accuracy in medical trainees and practicing clinicians. The impact of GBL persisted after three months.</p>","PeriodicalId":11273,"journal":{"name":"Diagnosis","volume":" ","pages":"136-141"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11075046/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diagnosis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/dx-2023-0133","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Perform a pilot study of online game-based learning (GBL) using natural frequencies and feedback to teach diagnostic reasoning.

Methods: We conducted a multicenter randomized-controlled trial of computer-based training. We enrolled medical students, residents, practicing physicians and nurse practitioners. The intervention was a 45 min online GBL training vs. control education with a primary outcome of score on a scale of diagnostic accuracy (composed of 10 realistic case vignettes, requesting estimates of probability of disease after a test result, 0-100 points total).

Results: Of 90 participants there were 30 students, 30 residents and 30 practicing clinicians. Of these 62 % (56/90) were female and 52 % (47/90) were white. Sixty were randomized to GBL intervention and 30 to control. The primary outcome of diagnostic accuracy immediately after training was better in GBL (mean accuracy score 59.4) vs. control (37.6), p=0.0005. The GBL group was then split evenly (30, 30) into no further intervention or weekly emails with case studies. Both GBL groups performed better than control at one-month and some continued effect at three-month follow up. Scores at one-month GBL (59.2) GBL plus emails (54.2) vs. control (33.9), p=0.024; three-months GBL (56.2), GBL plus emails (42.9) vs. control (35.1), p=0.076. Most participants would recommend GBL to colleagues (73 %), believed it was enjoyable (92 %) and believed it improves test interpretation (95 %).

Conclusions: In this pilot study, a single session with GBL nearly doubled score on a scale of diagnostic accuracy in medical trainees and practicing clinicians. The impact of GBL persisted after three months.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
通过游戏学习提高诊断准确性:随机对照试验。
目标:开展基于游戏的在线学习(GBL)试点研究:利用自然频率和反馈进行在线游戏式学习(GBL)的试点研究,以教授诊断推理:我们开展了一项基于计算机培训的多中心随机对照试验。我们招募了医科学生、住院医师、执业医师和执业护士。干预措施是 45 分钟的在线 GBL 培训与对照教育,主要结果是诊断准确性量表上的得分(由 10 个真实病例组成,要求在测试结果出来后估计疾病的概率,总分为 0-100 分):在 90 名参与者中,有 30 名学生、30 名住院医师和 30 名执业临床医师。其中女性占 62%(56/90),白人占 52%(47/90)。60人随机接受GBL干预,30人接受对照组干预。培训后立即诊断准确性的主要结果是,GBL 组(平均准确性得分 59.4)优于对照组(37.6),P=0.0005。然后,GBL 组被平均分成两组(30、30),即不再进行干预或每周通过电子邮件进行案例研究。在一个月的随访中,GBL 组的表现均优于对照组,在三个月的随访中仍有一些效果。一个月时,GBL 组(59.2 分)、GBL 加电子邮件组(54.2 分)与对照组(33.9 分)相比,P=0.024;三个月时,GBL 组(56.2 分)、GBL 加电子邮件组(42.9 分)与对照组(35.1 分)相比,P=0.076。大多数参与者会向同事推荐GBL(73%),认为GBL令人愉快(92%),并认为GBL能改善测试解读(95%):在这项试验性研究中,GBL的单次课程几乎使医学受训者和执业临床医生在诊断准确性量表上的得分翻了一番。GBL的影响在三个月后依然存在。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Diagnosis
Diagnosis MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
5.70%
发文量
41
期刊介绍: Diagnosis focuses on how diagnosis can be advanced, how it is taught, and how and why it can fail, leading to diagnostic errors. The journal welcomes both fundamental and applied works, improvement initiatives, opinions, and debates to encourage new thinking on improving this critical aspect of healthcare quality.  Topics: -Factors that promote diagnostic quality and safety -Clinical reasoning -Diagnostic errors in medicine -The factors that contribute to diagnostic error: human factors, cognitive issues, and system-related breakdowns -Improving the value of diagnosis – eliminating waste and unnecessary testing -How culture and removing blame promote awareness of diagnostic errors -Training and education related to clinical reasoning and diagnostic skills -Advances in laboratory testing and imaging that improve diagnostic capability -Local, national and international initiatives to reduce diagnostic error
期刊最新文献
Time pressure in diagnosing written clinical cases: an experimental study on time constraints and perceived time pressure. CDC's Core Elements to promote diagnostic excellence. Trends of diagnostic adverse events in hospital deaths: longitudinal analyses of four retrospective record review studies. A decision support system to increase the compliance of diagnostic imaging examinations with imaging guidelines: focused on cerebrovascular diseases. Bayesian intelligence for medical diagnosis: a pilot study on patient disposition for emergency medicine chest pain.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1