A quasi-experimental study to compare the acquisition of basic clinical skills in novice medical students taught by George and Doto’s five-step method compared to those taught by the traditional approach (SODOTO)

Q4 Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics Indian journal of physiology and pharmacology Pub Date : 2022-05-31 DOI:10.25259/ijpp_136_2020
Swapnil J. Paralikar, C. Shah, Anil Kapoor, Upesh Parmar
{"title":"A quasi-experimental study to compare the acquisition of basic clinical skills in novice medical students taught by George and Doto’s five-step method compared to those taught by the traditional approach (SODOTO)","authors":"Swapnil J. Paralikar, C. Shah, Anil Kapoor, Upesh Parmar","doi":"10.25259/ijpp_136_2020","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n\nThe aim of this study was to compare the acquisition of basic clinical skills by George and Doto’s five step method compared to the Traditional SODOTO approach, and to ascertain the perception of the students regarding these diverse methods.\n\n\n\nFifty-four 2nd MBBS 1st semester students posted in the Department of Medicine at GMERS, Gotri, were enrolled for the study. After teaching the theory, both groups were taught per abdomen (P/A) examination and respiratory system (R/S) examination – one system by the five-step method and the other by the SODOTO approach. Skill acquisition was tested by pre-validated checklists. Finally, feedback was collected on the perception of students using a pre-validated questionnaire. The data were analysed using GraphPad.\n\n\n\nThere was an average 20% improvement (P < 0.001) in the group taught by the five-step method compared to the one taught by the traditional approach (P/A – 45.14/60 [5.64] vs. 57.86/60 [1.83] [Group B vs. Group A]) (R/S examination – 26.17/40 [6.65] vs. 34.79/40 [3.56] [Group A vs. Group B]).\n\n\n\nGeorge and Doto’s five-step method has been found to be more effective than the traditional SODOTO approach.\n","PeriodicalId":13367,"journal":{"name":"Indian journal of physiology and pharmacology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian journal of physiology and pharmacology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25259/ijpp_136_2020","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the acquisition of basic clinical skills by George and Doto’s five step method compared to the Traditional SODOTO approach, and to ascertain the perception of the students regarding these diverse methods. Fifty-four 2nd MBBS 1st semester students posted in the Department of Medicine at GMERS, Gotri, were enrolled for the study. After teaching the theory, both groups were taught per abdomen (P/A) examination and respiratory system (R/S) examination – one system by the five-step method and the other by the SODOTO approach. Skill acquisition was tested by pre-validated checklists. Finally, feedback was collected on the perception of students using a pre-validated questionnaire. The data were analysed using GraphPad. There was an average 20% improvement (P < 0.001) in the group taught by the five-step method compared to the one taught by the traditional approach (P/A – 45.14/60 [5.64] vs. 57.86/60 [1.83] [Group B vs. Group A]) (R/S examination – 26.17/40 [6.65] vs. 34.79/40 [3.56] [Group A vs. Group B]). George and Doto’s five-step method has been found to be more effective than the traditional SODOTO approach.
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
一项准实验研究,将George和Doto的五步法与传统方法(SODOTO)教授的新手医学生基本临床技能的获得情况进行比较
本研究的目的是将George和Doto的五步法与传统的SODOTO方法对基本临床技能的习得进行比较,并确定学生对这些不同方法的看法。54名就读于哥德里GMERS医学系的MBBS第二学期第一学期的学生参加了这项研究。在教授该理论后,两组都接受了每腹部(P/A)检查和呼吸系统(R/S)检查——一个系统采用五步法,另一个采用SODOTO法。技能获取通过预先验证的检查表进行测试。最后,使用预先验证的问卷收集了关于学生感知的反馈。使用GraphPad对数据进行分析。与传统方法(P/A–45.14/60[5.64]对57.86/60[1.83][B组对A组])相比,五步法教学组的平均改善率为20%(P<0.001)(R/S检查–26.17/40[6.65]对34.79/40[3.56][A组对。研究发现,George和Doto的五步法比传统的SODOTO方法更有效。
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
Indian journal of physiology and pharmacology
Indian journal of physiology and pharmacology Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics-Pharmacology
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
35
期刊介绍: Indian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology (IJPP) welcomes original manuscripts based upon research in physiological, pharmacological and allied sciences from any part of the world.
期刊最新文献
A randomised controlled trial of mindfulness-based stress reduction programme for substance abuse patients in deaddiction centre Faculty perceptions of the efficacy, benefits and challenges of simulation-based early clinical exposure for medical students in India: A qualitative study Oesophageal pressure topographic metrics in refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease: An Indian perspective Erratum: Breath characteristics in four volitional yoga breathing practices Deep brain stimulation for the heterogeneous pathophysiology of Parkinson’s disease
×
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