Online Workshops Versus Live Medical Education on Self-Medication Literacy for Middle School Students. What Is the Best Pedagogic Method?

Q3 Medicine Acta medica academica Pub Date : 2024-08-01 DOI:10.5644/ama2006-124.449
Ghita Dubory, Victor Housset, Roxanne Liard, Claire Bastard, Marine Joulin, Angelo V Vasiliadis, Arnaud Dubory, Vasileios Giovanoulis
{"title":"Online Workshops Versus Live Medical Education on Self-Medication Literacy for Middle School Students. What Is the Best Pedagogic Method?","authors":"Ghita Dubory, Victor Housset, Roxanne Liard, Claire Bastard, Marine Joulin, Angelo V Vasiliadis, Arnaud Dubory, Vasileios Giovanoulis","doi":"10.5644/ama2006-124.449","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to determine which pedagogic method, online workshops or live medical education, was the better way to teach about self-medication for middle school students.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The following groups were formed: group O (students receiving online education), group L (students participating in live medical education animated by a medical practitioner and a science teacher) and group C (students without any medical learning). To compare them, the students answered three multiple choice questions before and after the educational intervention. The students in group L were evaluated immediately after the live medical training and group O immediately after the online workshops (t1). Group C was only evaluated at t0.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Group C N=195), group L (N=219) and group O (N=200, but 101 students who participated in the online workshops students dropped out before the end) were equivalent in terms of gender, but their ages and school grades were statistically different (P<0.001). A post-hoc test revealed that students in group O were older and in a higher grade than those in the other two groups (P<0.001) but the mean ages and school grades were equivalent in group L and group C. At t0, the results obtained were equivalent in the 3 groups. At t1, school students obtained better results in both groups (P<0.001) but these same results were significantly better in group L than those obtained in group O (P<0.001). Age, gender, school grade and school level had no effect on the students' results.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The study's findings suggest that live medical education is a superior approach for imparting self-medication knowledge to middle school students.</p>","PeriodicalId":38313,"journal":{"name":"Acta medica academica","volume":"53 2","pages":"146-154"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11626236/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta medica academica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5644/ama2006-124.449","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to determine which pedagogic method, online workshops or live medical education, was the better way to teach about self-medication for middle school students.

Methods: The following groups were formed: group O (students receiving online education), group L (students participating in live medical education animated by a medical practitioner and a science teacher) and group C (students without any medical learning). To compare them, the students answered three multiple choice questions before and after the educational intervention. The students in group L were evaluated immediately after the live medical training and group O immediately after the online workshops (t1). Group C was only evaluated at t0.

Results: Group C N=195), group L (N=219) and group O (N=200, but 101 students who participated in the online workshops students dropped out before the end) were equivalent in terms of gender, but their ages and school grades were statistically different (P<0.001). A post-hoc test revealed that students in group O were older and in a higher grade than those in the other two groups (P<0.001) but the mean ages and school grades were equivalent in group L and group C. At t0, the results obtained were equivalent in the 3 groups. At t1, school students obtained better results in both groups (P<0.001) but these same results were significantly better in group L than those obtained in group O (P<0.001). Age, gender, school grade and school level had no effect on the students' results.

Conclusion: The study's findings suggest that live medical education is a superior approach for imparting self-medication knowledge to middle school students.

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
在线研讨会与现场医学教育对中学生自我药疗素养的影响。什么是最好的教学方法?
目的:探讨在线研讨会和现场医学教育在中学生自我药疗教学中的效果。方法:分为三组:O组(接受在线教育的学生)、L组(由一名医生和一名科学教师进行现场医学教育的学生)和C组(未接受任何医学学习的学生)。为了进行比较,学生们在教育干预前后分别回答了三个选择题。L组学生在现场医学培训后立即进行评估,O组学生在在线研讨会后立即进行评估(t1)。C组仅在0时进行评估。结果:C组(N= 195)、L组(N=219)、O组(N=200),其中参加在线研修班的101名学生(中途退学)性别相当,但年龄和学业成绩差异有统计学意义(p)结论:现场医学教育是中学生自我药疗知识传授的一种较好的方式。
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
Acta medica academica
Acta medica academica Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊最新文献
Multimodal Anesthesia-Analgesia for Patients with Huntington's Disease: A Case Series. An Ectopic External Jugular Vein Draining into the Axillary Vein: a Rare Anatomical Variation with Clinical Implications. A Round Ligament Mesothelial Cyst Imitating an Inguinal Hernia in a Woman of Reproductive Age. HPV-Related Cancers in Bosnia and Herzegovina: A Comprehensive Review. Institutional Experience of Lymphoproliferative Disorders with Initial Diagnosis Made via Fine Needle Aspiration at Otolaryngology Clinic.
×
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