IS HIGH-FIDELITY PATIENT SIMULATION-BASED TEACHING SUPERIOR TO VIDEO-ASSISTED LECTUREBASED TEACHING IN ENHANCING KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS AMONG UNDERGRADUATE MEDICAL STUDENTS?

B. Pal, Sook Vui Chong, Aung Win Thein, Ava Gwak Mui Tay, H. Soe, Sudipta Pal
{"title":"IS HIGH-FIDELITY PATIENT SIMULATION-BASED TEACHING SUPERIOR TO VIDEO-ASSISTED LECTUREBASED TEACHING IN ENHANCING KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS AMONG UNDERGRADUATE MEDICAL STUDENTS?","authors":"B. Pal, Sook Vui Chong, Aung Win Thein, Ava Gwak Mui Tay, H. Soe, Sudipta Pal","doi":"10.22452/JUMMEC.VOL24NO1.14","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Medical simulation is a technique that allows interactive and immersive activity by recreating all or part of a clinical experience without exposing the patients to the antecedent risks. High-fidelity patient simulation-based teaching is an innovative and efficient method to address increasing student enrolment, faculty shortages and restricted clinical sites. Objective: To assess the effectiveness of high-fidelity patient simulation (HFPS) as compared to video-assisted lecture-based teaching method (VALB) among undergraduate medical students. Methods: The study was a Randomized Controlled Trial which involved 56 final year undergraduate medical students. The effectiveness of teaching based on HFPS (intervention group) and VALB (control group), on acquisition of knowledge, was assessed by multiple choice questions (MCQs) in the first and fourth week. Similarly, the skills competency was assessed by objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) in the second and fourth week. Mean and standard deviation (SD) for total score of knowledge and skills assessments were used as outcome measures. P value < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. Results: In both groups, students had significant higher mean MCQ scores at Post-tests. The intervention group had higher mean change score of MCQ marks than the control group but the difference was not statistically significant. In both the first and second skills assessments, mean OSCE scores for intervention group were higher than control group but this difference was not statistically significant. Conclusion: There was significant gain in knowledge in both methods of teaching but did not reach statistical difference in terms of skills enhancement in the intervention group as compared to the control group.","PeriodicalId":39135,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the University of Malaya Medical Centre","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the University of Malaya Medical Centre","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22452/JUMMEC.VOL24NO1.14","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Introduction: Medical simulation is a technique that allows interactive and immersive activity by recreating all or part of a clinical experience without exposing the patients to the antecedent risks. High-fidelity patient simulation-based teaching is an innovative and efficient method to address increasing student enrolment, faculty shortages and restricted clinical sites. Objective: To assess the effectiveness of high-fidelity patient simulation (HFPS) as compared to video-assisted lecture-based teaching method (VALB) among undergraduate medical students. Methods: The study was a Randomized Controlled Trial which involved 56 final year undergraduate medical students. The effectiveness of teaching based on HFPS (intervention group) and VALB (control group), on acquisition of knowledge, was assessed by multiple choice questions (MCQs) in the first and fourth week. Similarly, the skills competency was assessed by objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) in the second and fourth week. Mean and standard deviation (SD) for total score of knowledge and skills assessments were used as outcome measures. P value < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. Results: In both groups, students had significant higher mean MCQ scores at Post-tests. The intervention group had higher mean change score of MCQ marks than the control group but the difference was not statistically significant. In both the first and second skills assessments, mean OSCE scores for intervention group were higher than control group but this difference was not statistically significant. Conclusion: There was significant gain in knowledge in both methods of teaching but did not reach statistical difference in terms of skills enhancement in the intervention group as compared to the control group.
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
在提高医学本科生的知识和技能方面,基于高保真度患者模拟的教学是否优于基于视频的教学?
引言:医学模拟是一种技术,通过重现全部或部分临床体验,在不让患者暴露于先前风险的情况下,实现互动和沉浸式活动。基于高保真患者模拟的教学是一种创新有效的方法,可以解决学生入学率增加、师资短缺和临床场地受限的问题。目的:评估高保真度患者模拟(HFPS)与基于视频辅助讲座的教学方法(VALB)在医学本科生中的有效性。方法:本研究采用随机对照试验,研究对象为56名医科大四学生。在第一周和第四周,通过选择题(MCQ)评估基于HFPS(干预组)和VALB(对照组)的教学在知识获取方面的有效性。同样,在第二周和第四周通过客观结构化临床考试(OSCE)评估技能能力。使用知识和技能评估总分的平均值和标准差(SD)作为结果测量。P值<0.05被认为具有统计学意义。结果:在两组中,学生在后测中的平均MCQ得分都显著较高。干预组MCQ评分的平均变化得分高于对照组,但差异无统计学意义。在第一次和第二次技能评估中,干预组的平均OSCE得分均高于对照组,但这一差异无统计学意义。结论:与对照组相比,干预组在两种教学方法中都有显著的知识增长,但在技能提升方面没有统计学差异。
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
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
EARLY IDENTIFICATION OF HIGH RISK COVID-19 PATIENTS USING HEMATOLOGICAL INDICES THE IMPACT OF MOVEMENT CONTROL ORDER DURING COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON HEALTHCARE UTILISATION: HOW DOES THE PROJECTED PATIENT WORKLOAD COMPARED TO THE ACTUAL NUMBER OF PATIENTS IN CARE? AGE DIFFERENCE AND PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH ADOPTION RATE OF PROTECTIVE MEASURES AGAINST COVID-19 IN MALAYSIA MENTAL HEALTH AMONG HOSPITAL STAFF DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC IN A THAI UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL UPDATE ON RAPID DIAGNOSTIC TESTING FOR COVID-19
×
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