Reinventing Biostatistics Education for Basic Scientists.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Weissgerber TL
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4825954 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionEvidence-based medicine (EBM) is pivotal in shaping patient care, yet it is challenging to incorporate into undergraduate medical education (UME) due to a lack of dedicated resources within the preclinical curriculum. To address this challenge, we used a peer-led approach to explain difficult concepts through language that students can understand at their shared level of understanding.MethodsFour second-year medical students trained in EBM over 18 months by facilitating monthly journal clubs, ultimately leading to their involvement as peer-instructors. With input from a faculty expert, peer-instructors designed integrative PowerPoint modules and interactive problem sets on basic biostatistics and EBM principles. Assessment included formative quizzes with multiple attempts to achieve at least 80% to demonstrate mastery of core learning objectives. Afterwards, students were invited to provide feedback using a 5-point Likert scale survey.ResultsOf second-year students who participated, all 151 demonstrated 80% competency on each quiz. Eighty-seven (58%) students completed the survey on which, 77% agreed/strongly agreed that their level of understanding of EBM improved after the peer-led sessions, 76% agreed/strongly agreed that the sessions were more conducive to learning compared to traditional lectures, and 94% agreed/strongly agreed that the material covered was relevant to the USMLE Step 1.DiscussionThis peer-led approach has been rated as effective by learners, improving their ability to critically appraise and apply clinical evidence. To promote integration of EBM into UME, we have prepared modules, problem sets, quizzes, and an outline of the problem-solving sessions for universal adoption.
| S-EPMC7703476 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The World Wide Web and the advancement of computer technology in the 1960s and 1990s respectively set the ground for a substantial and simultaneous change in many facets of our life, including medicine, health care, and medical education. The traditional didactic approach has shifted towards more dynamic and interactive methods, leveraging technologies such as simulation tools, virtual reality, and online platforms. At the forefront is the remarkable evolution that has revolutionized how medical knowledge is accessed, disseminated, and integrated into pedagogical practices. The COVID-19 pandemic also led to rapid and large-scale adoption of e-learning and digital resources in medical education because of widespread lockdowns, social distancing measures, and the closure of medical schools and healthcare training programs. This review paper examines the evolution of medical education from the Flexnerian era to the modern digital age, closely examining the influence of the evolving WWW and its shift from Education 1.0 to Education 4.0. This evolution has been further accentuated by the transition from the static landscapes of Web 2D to the immersive realms of Web 3D, especially considering the growing notion of the metaverse. The application of the metaverse is an interconnected, virtual shared space that includes virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), and mixed reality (MR) to create a fertile ground for simulation-based training, collaborative learning, and experiential skill acquisition for competency development. This review includes the multifaceted applications of the metaverse in medical education, outlining both its benefits and challenges. Through insightful case studies and examples, it highlights the innovative potential of the metaverse as a platform for immersive learning experiences. Moreover, the review addresses the role of emerging technologies in shaping the post-pandemic future of medical education, ultimately culminating in a series of recommendations tailored for medical institutions aiming to successfully capitalize on revolutionary changes.
| S-EPMC10810636 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This report is based on the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology's symposium, "Engaging basic Scientists in Translational Research: Identifying Opportunities, Overcoming Obstacles," held in Chevy Chase, MD, March 24-25, 2011. Meeting participants examined the benefits of engaging basic scientists in translational research, the challenges to their participation in translational research, and the roles that research institutions, funding organizations, professional societies, and scientific publishers can play to address these challenges.
| S-EPMC3419626 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionSensitivity, specificity, and predictive values-the basic statistics behind using and interpreting screening and diagnostic tests-are taught in all medical schools, yet studies have shown that a majority of physicians cannot correctly define and apply these concepts. Previous work has not rigorously examined this disconnect and attempted to address it.MethodsWe used adult learning theory to design a case-based interactive workshop to review biostatistics and apply them to clinical decision-making using Bayes' theorem. Participants took an anonymous multiple-choice pretest, posttest, and delayed posttest on definitions and application of the concepts, and we compared the scores between the three tests. Several experiences with early iterations provided feedback to improve the workshop but were not included for analysis.ResultsWe conducted the finalized workshop with 54 pediatrics students, residents, and faculty. All learners completed the immediate pre- and posttests, and eight completed the delayed posttest. Average scores rose from 4.5/8 (56%) on the pretest to 6.5/8 (81%) on the posttest and 6.4/8 (80%) on the delayed posttest. Two-tailed t tests showed p < .001 for the difference between the pretest and both posttests, and post hoc power analysis showed a power of 99% to detect the observed differences. There was no significant difference (p = .8) between the posttest and delayed posttest.DiscussionOur work demonstrates that an interactive workshop reviewing basic biostatistics and teaching rational diagnostic testing using Bayes' theorem can be effective in connecting theoretical knowledge of biostatistics to evidence-based decision-making in real clinical practice.
| S-EPMC6346275 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe Biomedical Scientist (BMS) role is established in healthcare, working in laboratory environments to provide diagnostic testing and to monitor treatment effects on a patients' health. The profession is subject to several professional standards which highlight the importance of working in the best interests of the patient and service user. However, Biomedical Scientists have little or no patient contact. This study aimed to determine how Biomedical Scientists evidence that they meet the professional standards and support the achievement of patient outcomes.Materials and methodsThis study utilised a Delphi method to explore the opinions of professional stakeholders to determine whether there was consensus for how this professional group contributes to patient outcomes and offers evidence that they are working in the best interests of the patient. The qualitative 1st round of the study consisted of focus groups and interviews with staff and students on the BSc Biomedical Science awards, Professional, Statutory and Regulatory body (PSRB) representatives and Biomedical Scientists from the National Health Service (NHS). The first-round responses were analysed using thematic analysis which then generated attitude statements which participants scored using a 5-point Likert scale in the 2nd round. Consensus or divergence of opinion was determined based upon a 70% consensus level within each participant group and overall.ResultsFollowing analysis of the 2nd round data, there was divergence of opinion across all stakeholders, with consensus rates being highest in the Biomedical Scientist group (72.7% of statements reached 70% consensus), followed by the student group (54.5% of statements reached 70% consensus) and lowest in the academic group (40.9% of statements reached 70% consensus).DiscussionThis demonstrates a theory-practice gap in both the academic and student groups, suggesting that graduates are insufficiently prepared for their post-graduate role. This gap was particularly evident when discussing topics such as how Biomedical Scientists contribute to patient care, professional registration and working as part of the multi-disciplinary team (MDT). The identification of a theory-practice gap in the education of Biomedical Scientists is a novel finding, indicating that students may graduate with insufficient understanding of the Biomedical Scientist role.
| S-EPMC11200117 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC9586582 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The primary and secondary learning years shape development of scientific interest and skills required for science literacy, presenting a critical timeline target for science education intervention. Although many initiatives exist to target this timeframe, the modern classroom belies easy scientific investigation. Numerous initiatives often run simultaneously in a given classroom, creating limited capacity for variable control. Consequently, there is a dearth of high-quality and meaningful data in education sciences that exacerbates the general segregation of education research from practice. Many science reform programmes go unmeasured. The limited number that is researched often report strictly qualitative results or stop short of statistically significant quantitative investigation. Lack of high-resolution data restricts the ability to make informed policy changes and precludes attainment of "evidence-based education". Here, we demonstrate 5-year efficacy of a novel, inquiry-based primary and secondary science reform programme Integrated Science Education Outreach (InSciEd Out). Five years of data over three cohorts of matched students from US grades 5-8 show maintained gains in science fair and honours biology election, as well as improved performance on Minnesota state standardized science testing. Detailed value-added analyses further reveal InSciEd Out-correlated gains in partnership-focused areas of life sciences, and history and nature of science. These analyses provide evidence that scientifically rigorous evaluation demonstrating relevant programme efficacy is indeed achievable in education science. Our results support the premise that the InSciEd Out programme is a scalable intervention capable of primary and secondary science education reform. The programme substantively builds upon prior efforts in the field. Although InSciEd Out deploys novel approaches and tools, the broad lessons learned from this programme are readily translatable to other contemporary efforts cultivating science literacy for all.
| S-EPMC6555486 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The extent to which basic medical research is translated into clinical practice is a topic of interest to all stakeholders. In this study, we assessed the clinical translation intensity of papers published by scientists who have made outstanding contributions to the field of basic medicine (Lasker Prize winners for Basic Medical Research). Approximate Potential for Translation (APT), Translational science scores (TS), and Citations by clinical research (Cited by Clin.) were analyzed as dependent variables. A traditional citation indicator was used as a reference (relative citation ratio, RCR). In order to examine the correlation between these different indicators and the characteristics of the paper, the author, and the institution. we used nonparametric tests, Spearman correlations, ordinal least squares regressions (OLS), quantile regressions, and zero-inflated negative binomial regression methods. We found that among the basic medical research papers published by Lasker Basic Medicine Award winners, (1) 20% are cited by clinical research; 11.6% of the papers were more valuable for clinical research than basic research; 12.8% have a probability of more than 50% to be cited in future clinical studies; (2) Spearman correlations were conducted among APT, TS, Cited by Clin., RCR, and all of the other continuous variables. There is a significant, positive, low to moderate correlation between APT, TS, and Cited by Clin (APT and TS: r = 0.549, p < 0.01; APT and Cited by Clin: r = 0.530, p < 0.01; TS and Cited by Clin: r = 0.383, p < 0.01). However, the relationship between RCR and the three indicators of clinical translation intensity was not consistent. APT was positively correlated with RCR (r = 0.553, p < 0.01). Cited by Clin. is weakly positively correlated with RCR (r = 0.381, p < 0.01). There is almost no correlation between TS and RCR (r = 0.184, p < 0.01). (3) Publication age, primary research paper, multidisciplinary science, number of disciplines, authors, institutions, funded projects, references, length of the title, length of paper, physical age, gender, nationality, institutional type, Nobel Prize have a significant relationship with 1 to 3 types of clinical translation intensity measures. In a sample of basic medical research papers published by the world's top scientists in basic medicine, we came to the following conclusions: the three indicators, APT, TS and Cited by Clin., measured the clinical translation intensity of the papers from different perspectives. They are both related to each other and have their own characteristics. In a sample of basic medical research papers published by the world's top scientists in basic medicine, characteristics at the paper, winner, and institution level significantly correlated with the measures of clinical translation intensity. Gender effect on the clinical translation intensity of papers was confirmed. Traditional citation-based indicators and translational-focused indicators measure academic impact and clinical impact respectively. There is a certain degree of disconnect between them. Two types of indicators should be used in combination in future assessments of basic medical research.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11192-023-04634-4.
| S-EPMC9885061 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To what extent have positions for science education specialists as change agents within science departments persisted and evolved over the past decade? We addressed this question by studying a population of Science Faculty with Education Specialties (SFES) first described in 2008. SFES are university science faculty who engage in undergraduate science education, K-12 science education, and/or research in science education. Compared to a decade ago, SFES are now more prevalent and more likely to be formally trained in science education. Many identify as discipline-based education researchers (DBER) but assert that their SFES and DBER roles are nonequivalent. SFES have garnered university administrator support through varied science education activities, and these insights into the evolving role of scientists in science education have implications for many stakeholders.
| S-EPMC6551186 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Aim: Explicitly addressing clinical reasoning (CR) is seen as a promising opportunity in the teaching of the biomedical sciences to enable students to acquire the skills to meet the challenges posed by ever more complex health care processes. The quality of diagnostic decisions plays an essential role here. Our aim is to examine if biomedical scientists recognize the practical relevance of CR and are able to apply it as a reflective framework for their professional practice.Method: In two different educational settings, biomedical science students were asked to look closely at CR in the context of the degree program and to indentify the different forms of reasoning used in their internships and professional practice. The written descriptions were analyzed for content and discussed in the seminars.Results: In both scenarios, the analyses of the students’ descriptions and discussions showed that examining the different forms of CR helped to raise conscious awareness of thought and decision-making processes, encouraging students to think critically about them and to articulate insights about them, as well as recognize the importance of different reasoning strategies when making specific medical decisions.Conclusion: CR for biomedical scientists could help make decision-making processes visible for other occupational groups and thus advantageously integrate specific professional expertise into health care.Over the long term, an interdisciplinary focus on CR could foster and promote the development of a shared discourse and interprofessional collaboration.
| S-EPMC6905367 | biostudies-literature