A three-arm single blind randomised control trial of naïve medical students performing a shoulder joint clinical examination

Technological advances have previously been hailed as a new dawn in Higher Education, with the advent of 'massive open online courses' (MOOCs) and online learning. Virtual platforms have potential advantages such as accessibility and availability but simply transferring educational materia...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:BMC medical education 2021-07, Vol.21 (1), p.390-7, Article 390
Hauptverfasser: Brewer, P E, Racy, M, Hampton, M, Mushtaq, F, Tomlinson, J E, Ali, F M
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Technological advances have previously been hailed as a new dawn in Higher Education, with the advent of 'massive open online courses' (MOOCs) and online learning. Virtual platforms have potential advantages such as accessibility and availability but simply transferring educational material to the online environment may not ensure high quality learning. Clinical examination is a fundamental principle of medical assessment, and this study aimed to assess the role of technology in teaching these skills. To determine whether three teaching modalities were of equal efficacy in teaching examination of the shoulder joint to naïve medical students. Sixty-seven pre-clinical medical students naïve to large joint examination were recruited. Participants completed a learning style questionnaire and were then block randomised to three study: textbook study, face-to-face seminar, or video tutorial via online platform. The same examination technique was taught in all groups, with the intervention being the method of delivery All second year students were eligible for inclusion. The single exclusion criteria was previous exposure to clinical examination teaching. Students were assessed using a standardised scoring system at baseline (pre-intervention), and days 5 and 19 post-intervention (maximum score 30). Assessors were blinded to group allocation. The primary outcome was assessment score at day 5 post intervention. There was no difference between the three groups at baseline assessment (mean scores 2.4 for textbook, 2.8 for face-to-face, and 3.1 for video; p = 0.267). Mean post-intervention scores were 16.5 textbook, 25.5 face-to-face, and 22.4 video (p 
ISSN:1472-6920
1472-6920
DOI:10.1186/s12909-021-02822-5