{"title":"Mastery Learning Guided by Artificial Intelligence Is Superior to Directed Self-Regulated Learning in Flexible Bronchoscopy Training: An RCT.","authors":"Kristoffer Mazanti Cold, Wei Wei, Kaladerhan Agbontaen, Suveer Singh, Lars Konge","doi":"10.1159/000542045","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Simulation-based training has proven effective for learning flexible bronchoscopy. However, no studies have tested the efficacy of training toward established proficiency criteria, i.e., mastery learning (ML). We wish to test the effectiveness of ML compared to directed self-regulated learning (DSRL) on novice bronchoscopists' end-of-training performance.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In a standardized simulated setting, novices without prior bronchoscopy experience were trained using an artificial intelligence (AI) guidance system that automatically recognizes the bronchial segments. They were randomized into two groups: the ML group and the DSRL group. The ML group was trained until they completed two procedures meeting the proficiency targets: 18 inspected segments, 18 structured progressions, <120-s procedure time. The DSRL group was trained until they no longer perceived any additional benefits from training. Both groups then did a finalizing test, without the AI guidance enabled.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 24 participants completed the study, with 12 in each group. Both groups had a high mean number of inspected segments (ML = 17.2 segments, DSRL = 17.3 segments, p = 0.85) and structured progressions (ML = 15.5 progressions, DSRL = 14.8 progressions, p = 0.58), but the ML group performed the test procedure significantly faster (ML = 107 s, DSRL = 180 s, p < 0.001). The ML did not spend significantly longer time training (ML = 114 min, DSRL = 109 min, p = 0.84).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>ML is a very efficient training form allowing novice trainees to learn how to perform a thorough, systematic, and quick flexible bronchoscopy. ML does not require longer time spent training compared to DSRL, and we therefore recommend training of future bronchoscopists by this method.</p>","PeriodicalId":21048,"journal":{"name":"Respiration","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Respiration","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000542045","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: Simulation-based training has proven effective for learning flexible bronchoscopy. However, no studies have tested the efficacy of training toward established proficiency criteria, i.e., mastery learning (ML). We wish to test the effectiveness of ML compared to directed self-regulated learning (DSRL) on novice bronchoscopists' end-of-training performance.
Methods: In a standardized simulated setting, novices without prior bronchoscopy experience were trained using an artificial intelligence (AI) guidance system that automatically recognizes the bronchial segments. They were randomized into two groups: the ML group and the DSRL group. The ML group was trained until they completed two procedures meeting the proficiency targets: 18 inspected segments, 18 structured progressions, <120-s procedure time. The DSRL group was trained until they no longer perceived any additional benefits from training. Both groups then did a finalizing test, without the AI guidance enabled.
Results: A total of 24 participants completed the study, with 12 in each group. Both groups had a high mean number of inspected segments (ML = 17.2 segments, DSRL = 17.3 segments, p = 0.85) and structured progressions (ML = 15.5 progressions, DSRL = 14.8 progressions, p = 0.58), but the ML group performed the test procedure significantly faster (ML = 107 s, DSRL = 180 s, p < 0.001). The ML did not spend significantly longer time training (ML = 114 min, DSRL = 109 min, p = 0.84).
Conclusions: ML is a very efficient training form allowing novice trainees to learn how to perform a thorough, systematic, and quick flexible bronchoscopy. ML does not require longer time spent training compared to DSRL, and we therefore recommend training of future bronchoscopists by this method.
期刊介绍:
''Respiration'' brings together the results of both clinical and experimental investigations on all aspects of the respiratory system in health and disease. Clinical improvements in the diagnosis and treatment of chest and lung diseases are covered, as are the latest findings in physiology, biochemistry, pathology, immunology and pharmacology. The journal includes classic features such as editorials that accompany original articles in clinical and basic science research, reviews and letters to the editor. Further sections are: Technical Notes, The Eye Catcher, What’s Your Diagnosis?, The Opinion Corner, New Drugs in Respiratory Medicine, New Insights from Clinical Practice and Guidelines. ''Respiration'' is the official journal of the Swiss Society for Pneumology (SGP) and also home to the European Association for Bronchology and Interventional Pulmonology (EABIP), which occupies a dedicated section on Interventional Pulmonology in the journal. This modern mix of different features and a stringent peer-review process by a dedicated editorial board make ''Respiration'' a complete guide to progress in thoracic medicine.