The effectiveness of synchronous online clinics and conventional clinics among medical students: Assessing the influence of e-learning.

IF 1.4 Q3 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES Journal of Education and Health Promotion Pub Date : 2024-10-28 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.4103/jehp.jehp_194_24
Betsy Thomas, Sajith K Radhakrishnan, Radha T Ramakrishnan
{"title":"The effectiveness of synchronous online clinics and conventional clinics among medical students: Assessing the influence of e-learning.","authors":"Betsy Thomas, Sajith K Radhakrishnan, Radha T Ramakrishnan","doi":"10.4103/jehp.jehp_194_24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The COVID-19 pandemic presented challenges that led to the development of on-line learning, emphasizing how important it is for students to have access to quality education. This study was conducted to compare the efficacy of synchronous on-line and conventional clinics and the perception of students. This study was conducted over 12 months from November 2020. A total of 78 Phase 4 students were divided into six batches by convenient sampling based on roll numbers; each batch was again subdivided into two: Group A received conventional clinics and Group B received on-line synchronous clinics. Postsession multiple choice questions (MCQs) were conducted immediately after the session and again 2 weeks later to avoid recall bias. Perception was analyzed by Likert scale. The unpaired t-test was utilized for normally distributed continuous data and the Mann-Whitney U test for non-normally distributed or ordinal data to conduct statistical comparisons between the two groups. The assessment of e-learning between the two groups showed no significant difference, although the online group exhibited comparatively lower recall test scores compared to their post-test scores, even if not reach statistical significance. A significantly higher proportion of students in the conventional group expressed confidence in their exam performance and believed that traditional sessions were preferable for future learning endeavors. Most medical students stated that they preferred conventional clinics over e-learning education. Students felt that there was a difference between these two teaching methods' perceived efficacy and general attitudes.</p>","PeriodicalId":15581,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Education and Health Promotion","volume":"13 ","pages":"409"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11658035/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Education and Health Promotion","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jehp.jehp_194_24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic presented challenges that led to the development of on-line learning, emphasizing how important it is for students to have access to quality education. This study was conducted to compare the efficacy of synchronous on-line and conventional clinics and the perception of students. This study was conducted over 12 months from November 2020. A total of 78 Phase 4 students were divided into six batches by convenient sampling based on roll numbers; each batch was again subdivided into two: Group A received conventional clinics and Group B received on-line synchronous clinics. Postsession multiple choice questions (MCQs) were conducted immediately after the session and again 2 weeks later to avoid recall bias. Perception was analyzed by Likert scale. The unpaired t-test was utilized for normally distributed continuous data and the Mann-Whitney U test for non-normally distributed or ordinal data to conduct statistical comparisons between the two groups. The assessment of e-learning between the two groups showed no significant difference, although the online group exhibited comparatively lower recall test scores compared to their post-test scores, even if not reach statistical significance. A significantly higher proportion of students in the conventional group expressed confidence in their exam performance and believed that traditional sessions were preferable for future learning endeavors. Most medical students stated that they preferred conventional clinics over e-learning education. Students felt that there was a difference between these two teaching methods' perceived efficacy and general attitudes.

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
COVID-19 大流行所带来的挑战促成了在线学习的发展,强调了学生获得优质教育的重要性。本研究旨在比较同步在线诊所和传统诊所的疗效以及学生的看法。这项研究从 2020 年 11 月开始,历时 12 个月。研究以方便抽样的方式,根据名册编号将78名第四阶段学生分为六批,每批又分为两组:A 组接受传统门诊,B 组接受在线同步门诊。为避免回忆偏差,在诊疗结束后立即进行课后选择题(MCQ)测试,并在两周后再次进行MCQ测试。感知采用李克特量表进行分析。对正态分布的连续数据采用非配对 t 检验,对非正态分布或序数数据采用 Mann-Whitney U 检验,对两组数据进行统计比较。两组学生的电子学习评估结果显示,尽管在线组的回忆测试得分相对低于其后测得分,但即使未达到统计学意义上的显著性,两组学生的电子学习评估结果也没有显著差异。传统组中对自己的考试成绩表示有信心的学生比例明显较高,他们认为传统课程更适合今后的学习。大多数医学生表示,与电子学习教育相比,他们更喜欢传统诊所。学生们认为,这两种教学方法在感知效果和总体态度上存在差异。
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
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
21.40%
发文量
218
审稿时长
34 weeks
期刊最新文献
Development of a minimum data set for a blockchain-based personal health records (PHRs), for patient/physician interaction in family medicine. Development of occupational well-being measurement model in the employee of Abadan University of Medical Sciences. Flipping the script: The benefits of inverted classrooms in oncology education. Health literacy and tobacco cessation among hypertensive individuals: A mixed method study. Implementation and evaluation of the impact of virtual workshops of voluntary educational assistance among occupational health and safety students: Case study, Ardabil, Iran.
×
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