改善临床推理和实践的电子学习模块:前瞻性比较研究。

MedEdPublish (2016) Pub Date : 2024-01-05 eCollection Date: 2023-01-01 DOI:10.12688/mep.19449.2
Fabiola Stollar, Bernard Cerutti, Susanne Aujesky, Daniel Scherly, Mathieu Nendaz, Annick Galetto-Lacour
{"title":"改善临床推理和实践的电子学习模块:前瞻性比较研究。","authors":"Fabiola Stollar, Bernard Cerutti, Susanne Aujesky, Daniel Scherly, Mathieu Nendaz, Annick Galetto-Lacour","doi":"10.12688/mep.19449.2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Controversy remains about whether e-learning can improve clinical competences. Our study aimed to compare the effects of e-learning versus traditional education on medical students' reasoning and how they applied their knowledge to clinical competences, assess factors associated with e-learning that might influence exam scores, and evaluate medical students' satisfaction with these two learning methods.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Prospective study of 299 medical students in two fourth-year pediatric clerkship cohorts (2016-17 and 2017-18) in Switzerland.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We found no evidence of a difference in students' reasoning or how they applied their knowledge to competences in clinical case resolution, whether they had followed e-learning modules or attended traditional lectures. The number of quizzes taken and being female were factors associated with better scores. Even though overall satisfaction with the two learning methods was similar, students claimed that they learned more in e-learning than in traditional lectures and that e-learning explained learning objectives better.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>E-learning could be used as a supplement or alternative to traditional face-to-face medical teaching methods without compromising teaching quality. E-learning modules should be better integrated into medical students' curricula but avoid the risk of curriculum overload, especially in case of repeated COVID-like context.</p>","PeriodicalId":74136,"journal":{"name":"MedEdPublish (2016)","volume":"13 ","pages":"39"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11134138/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"E-learning modules to improve clinical reasoning and practice: a prospective comparative study.\",\"authors\":\"Fabiola Stollar, Bernard Cerutti, Susanne Aujesky, Daniel Scherly, Mathieu Nendaz, Annick Galetto-Lacour\",\"doi\":\"10.12688/mep.19449.2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Controversy remains about whether e-learning can improve clinical competences. Our study aimed to compare the effects of e-learning versus traditional education on medical students' reasoning and how they applied their knowledge to clinical competences, assess factors associated with e-learning that might influence exam scores, and evaluate medical students' satisfaction with these two learning methods.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Prospective study of 299 medical students in two fourth-year pediatric clerkship cohorts (2016-17 and 2017-18) in Switzerland.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We found no evidence of a difference in students' reasoning or how they applied their knowledge to competences in clinical case resolution, whether they had followed e-learning modules or attended traditional lectures. The number of quizzes taken and being female were factors associated with better scores. Even though overall satisfaction with the two learning methods was similar, students claimed that they learned more in e-learning than in traditional lectures and that e-learning explained learning objectives better.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>E-learning could be used as a supplement or alternative to traditional face-to-face medical teaching methods without compromising teaching quality. E-learning modules should be better integrated into medical students' curricula but avoid the risk of curriculum overload, especially in case of repeated COVID-like context.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74136,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"MedEdPublish (2016)\",\"volume\":\"13 \",\"pages\":\"39\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11134138/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"MedEdPublish (2016)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.12688/mep.19449.2\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"MedEdPublish (2016)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12688/mep.19449.2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:关于电子学习能否提高临床能力的争议依然存在。我们的研究旨在比较电子学习与传统教育对医学生推理能力的影响,以及他们如何将知识应用于临床能力,评估可能影响考试分数的电子学习相关因素,并评价医学生对这两种学习方法的满意度:对瑞士两届(2016-17 学年和 2017-18 学年)四年级儿科实习生中的 299 名医学生进行前瞻性研究:结果:我们没有发现任何证据表明,学生在推理或如何将知识应用于临床病例解决能力方面存在差异,无论他们是学习了电子学习模块还是参加了传统讲座。参加测验的次数和女性是获得较高分数的相关因素。尽管学生对两种学习方法的总体满意度相似,但他们认为电子学习比传统授课学到的东西更多,而且电子学习对学习目标的解释更好:结论:电子学习可作为传统面授医学教学方法的补充或替代方法,同时不会影响教学质量。电子学习模块应更好地融入医科学生的课程,但应避免课程负担过重的风险,尤其是在重复类似 COVID 的情况下。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
E-learning modules to improve clinical reasoning and practice: a prospective comparative study.

Background: Controversy remains about whether e-learning can improve clinical competences. Our study aimed to compare the effects of e-learning versus traditional education on medical students' reasoning and how they applied their knowledge to clinical competences, assess factors associated with e-learning that might influence exam scores, and evaluate medical students' satisfaction with these two learning methods.

Methods: Prospective study of 299 medical students in two fourth-year pediatric clerkship cohorts (2016-17 and 2017-18) in Switzerland.

Results: We found no evidence of a difference in students' reasoning or how they applied their knowledge to competences in clinical case resolution, whether they had followed e-learning modules or attended traditional lectures. The number of quizzes taken and being female were factors associated with better scores. Even though overall satisfaction with the two learning methods was similar, students claimed that they learned more in e-learning than in traditional lectures and that e-learning explained learning objectives better.

Conclusions: E-learning could be used as a supplement or alternative to traditional face-to-face medical teaching methods without compromising teaching quality. E-learning modules should be better integrated into medical students' curricula but avoid the risk of curriculum overload, especially in case of repeated COVID-like context.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
2 weeks
期刊最新文献
Medical students' knowledge on palliative care - a survey of teaching in Finland. Developing a clinician-friendly rubric for assessing history-taking skills in medical undergraduates speaking English as a foreign language. A retrospective feedback analysis of objective structured clinical examination performance of undergraduate medical students. Guidelines for Integrating actionable A-SMART Learning Outcomes into the Backward Design Process. Practical tips for teaching medicine in the metaverse.
×
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