Project description:In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, many medical universities worldwide, including the Poznan University of Medical Sciences, launched student volunteering projects (SVPs). We examined our student volunteers' perceptions on the conditions, safety, costs and benefits of their participation in the SVP. Using this information, we attempted to assess the viability of SVPs as a solution for health professions education during and after the pandemic. The main research tool was a questionnaire on students' perceptions of their participation in the SVP. As a complementary qualitative method, we used semi-structured interviews with the volunteers. Our respondents (n = 158) perceived conditions and safety generally positively: most reported having personal protective equipment (89.24%), technical support (88.61%), and induction training (79.11%). Only 38.61% said they had access to psychological support. In our view, benefits (e.g., an opportunity to make new contacts or receiving positive reactions from patients and staff) seemed to outweigh costs. 65.82% of the respondents agreed that they learnt new interesting things. A majority noticed the development of their soft skills (social 86.08%; organisational 78.48%; stress management 68.99%), while 40.51% - the development of their medical skills. The interviews pointed to additional benefits for students such as gaining insight of the healthcare system, and costs such as distress caused by some patient interactions. We conclude that student volunteering could become a viable solution for health professions education. To maximise its educational potential, volunteers' needs must be explored, psychological support ensured, and opportunities for mentoring and reflection provided. The organisational framework of a SVP should be culturally sensitive.
Project description:Background and aimsThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic stimulated a paradigm shift in medical and surgical education from in-person teaching to online teaching. It is unclear whether an in-person or online approach to surgical teaching for medical students is superior. We aim to compare the outcomes of in-person versus online surgical teaching in generating interest in and improving knowledge of surgery in medical students. We also aim the quantify the impact of a peer-run surgical teaching course.MethodsA six-session course was developed by medical students and covered various introductory surgical topics. The first iteration was offered online to 70 UK medical students in March 2021, and the second iteration was in-person for 20 students in November 2021. Objective and subjective knowledge was assessed through questionnaires before and after each session, and also for the entire course. Data were analyzed from this mixed-methods study to compare the impact of online versus in-person teaching on surgical knowledge and engagement.ResultsStudents in both iterations showed significant improvement of 33%-282% across the six sessions in knowledge and confidence after completing the course (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the level of objective knowledge, enjoyment, or organization of the course between online and in-person groups, although the in-person course was rated as more engaging (mean Likert score 9.1 vs. 9.7, p = 0.033).DiscussionSimilar objective and subjective surgical teaching outcomes were achieved in both iterations, including in "hands-on" topics such as suturing, gowning, and gloving. Students who completed the online course did not have any lower knowledge or confidence in their surgical skills; however, the in-person course was reported to be more engaging. Surgical teaching online and in-person may be similarly effective and can be delivered according to what is most convenient for the circumstances, such as in COVID-19.
Project description:Background : The online teaching demand has increased tremendously to promote the implementation of online teaching-leaning system to meet the need of students during the outbreaks of emerging infectious disease. This study aims to explore whether the pandemic of COVID-19, which requires universities to rapidly offer online learning, will affect attitudes about online education for undergraduate health sciences students. Also, it investigates the barriers for using online tools. Method : A cross-sectional survey using online social media was used to recruit eligible participants. The data for this study were focused on students' experiences utilizing an online education method offered by the Jordanian government universities. This study is utilizing newly developed measuring tools that are expected to enable students to evaluate online teaching in terms of their own learning progress. Results : A total of 1,210 participants agreed to complete the online survey questionnaire. The mean score preparedness and attitude toward online education was average. The majority of students agreed that online courses helped assign reading and homework time better than on-campus approach (75.0%) and felt comfortable to actively communicate with my classmates and instructors online. Zoom and eLearning were the most common online platforms utilized by students. The geographic locations, lack of past experience on using online tools, and lack of past experience on using online tools were identified by students as the main barrier to online educations. Conclusions : Although the pandemic of COVID-19 appeared as uncommon catalyst for promoting eLearning, further research is needed to assess whether learners are ready and willing to make greater use of online education to obtain high quality teaching and learning opportunities, which could totally change educators' and students' attitudes and impression, and subsequently the general themes of online education.
Project description:Introduction:The field of augmented reality (AR) is rapidly growing with many new potential applications in medical education. This systematic review investigated the current state of augmented reality applications (ARAs) and developed an analytical model to guide future research in assessing ARAs as teaching tools in medical education. Methods:A literature search was conducted using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar. This review followed PRISMA guidelines and included publications from January 1, 2000 to June 18, 2018. Inclusion criteria were experimental studies evaluating ARAs implemented in healthcare education published in English. Our review evaluated study quality and determined whether studies assessed ARA validity using criteria established by the GRADE Working Group and Gallagher et al., respectively. These findings were used to formulate an analytical model to assess the readiness of ARAs for implementation in medical education. Results:We identified 100,807 articles in the initial literature search; 36 met inclusion criteria for final review and were categorized into three categories: Surgery (23), Anatomy (9), and Other (4). The overall quality of the studies was poor and no ARA was tested for all five stages of validity. Our analytical model evaluates the importance of research quality, application content, outcomes, and feasibility of an ARA to gauge its readiness for implementation. Conclusion:While AR technology is growing at a rapid rate, the current quality and breadth of AR research in medical training is insufficient to recommend the adoption into educational curricula. We hope our analytical model will help standardize AR assessment methods and define the role of AR technology in medical education.
Project description:Background. The effective development of healthcare competencies poses great educational challenges. A possible approach to provide learning opportunities is the use of augmented reality (AR) where virtual learning experiences can be embedded in a real physical context. The aim of this study was to provide a comprehensive overview of the current state of the art in terms of user acceptance, the AR applications developed and the effect of AR on the development of competencies in healthcare. Methods. We conducted an integrative review. Integrative reviews are the broadest type of research review methods allowing for the inclusion of various research designs to more fully understand a phenomenon of concern. Our review included multi-disciplinary research publications in English reported until 2012. Results. 2529 research papers were found from ERIC, CINAHL, Medline, PubMed, Web of Science and Springer-link. Three qualitative, 20 quantitative and 2 mixed studies were included. Using a thematic analysis, we've described three aspects related to the research, technology and education. This study showed that AR was applied in a wide range of topics in healthcare education. Furthermore acceptance for AR as a learning technology was reported among the learners and its potential for improving different types of competencies. Discussion. AR is still considered as a novelty in the literature. Most of the studies reported early prototypes. Also the designed AR applications lacked an explicit pedagogical theoretical framework. Finally the learning strategies adopted were of the traditional style 'see one, do one and teach one' and do not integrate clinical competencies to ensure patients' safety.
Project description:Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality are regarded as smart and digital technologies that made their impact in many industries and settings. On the other hand, the ongoing pandemic of COVID-19 raises a series of issues and challenges for the tourism education, one of the main being the shift from the conventional/face-to-face to digital/hybrid learning forms and tools. The adoption and usage of these digital technologies raise a series of challenges for all stakeholders involved. The research question and study's aim were the influencing factors that determine the acceptance of Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality applications in the tertiary tourism education within the context of current pandemic. To address this aim, the study was drawn on the theoretical basis of Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). It takes a students' perspective to suggest a research model that was empirically investigated within the Chinese context (tourism departments in Chinese universities). The sample population consisted of 604 Chinese students and data was collected during February 2021. The data were analyzed using PLS-SEM. Findings indicated that perceived usefulness, hedonic motivation and price value are important predicting factors for Chinese students' adoption and use of these applications. These findings contribute to the extension of the TAM theory and the effective implementation of digital technologies in university settings. The study is completed by summarizing theoretical and practical implications of findings.
Project description:Background : The COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated a sudden transition to remote learning in medical schools. We aimed to assess student perceptions of remote learning during the pre-clinical curricular training phase. Methods: A survey was distributed to first- and second-year medical students enrolled at the University of California San Diego School of Medicine in March 2020. Frequencies of responses to structured multiple-choice questions were compared regarding impacts of remote learning on quality of instruction and ability to participate, value of various remote learning resources, living environment, and preparedness for subsequent stages of training. Responses to open-ended questions about strengths and weaknesses of the remote curriculum and overall reflections were coded for thematic content. Results: Of 268 students enrolled, 104 responded (53.7% of first-year students and 23.9% of second-year students). Overall, students felt the quality of instruction and their ability to participate had been negatively affected. Most (64.1%) preferred the flexibility of learning material at their own pace. Only 25.5% of respondents still felt connected to the medical school or classmates. Most second-year students (56.7%) felt their preparation for the USMLE Step 1 exam was negatively affected and 43.3% felt unprepared to begin clerkships. In narrative responses, most appreciated the increased flexibility of remote learning but recognized that digital fatigue, decreased ability to participate, and lack of clinical skills and hands-on lab learning were notable deficits. Conclusions: Videocasted lectures uploaded in advance, electronic health record and telehealth training for students, and training for teaching faculty to increase technological fluency may be considered to optimize remote learning curricula.
Project description:ObjectivesThis study aimed to review and synthesize the current research and state of augmented reality (AR), mixed reality (MR) and the applications developed for healthcare education beyond surgery.MethodsAn integrative review was conducted on all relevant material, drawing on different data sources, including the databases of PubMed, PsycINFO, and ERIC from January 2013 till September 2018. Inductive content analysis and qualitative synthesis were performed. Additionally, the quality of the studies was assessed with different structured tools.ResultsTwenty-six studies were included. Studies based on both AR and MR involved established applications in 27% of all cases (n=6), the rest being prototypes. The most frequently studied subjects were related to anatomy and anesthesia (n=13). All studies showed several healthcare educational benefits of AR and MR, significantly outperforming traditional learning approaches in 11 studies examining various outcomes. Studies had a low-to-medium quality overall with a MERSQI mean of 12.26 (SD=2.63), while the single qualitative study had high quality.ConclusionsThis review suggests the progress of learning approaches based on AR and MR for various medical subjects while moving the research base away from feasibility studies on prototypes. Yet, lacking validity of study conclusions, heterogeneity of research designs and widely varied reporting challenges transferability of the findings in the studies included in the review. Future studies should examine suitable research designs and instructional objectives achievable by AR and MR-based applications to strengthen the evidence base, making it relevant for medical educators and institutions to apply the technologies.
Project description:PurposeOnly a few studies have evaluated Augmented Reality (AR) in in vivo simulations compared to traditional laparoscopy; further research is especially needed regarding the most effective AR visualization technique. This pilot study aims to determine, under controlled conditions on a 3D-printed phantom, whether an AR laparoscope improves surgical outcomes over conventional laparoscopy without augmentation.MethodsWe selected six surgical residents at a similar level of training and had them perform a laparoscopic task. The participants repeated the experiment three times, using different 3D phantoms and visualizations: Floating AR, Occlusion AR, and without any AR visualization (Control). Surgical performance was determined using objective measurements. Subjective measures, such as task load and potential application areas, were collected with questionnaires.ResultsDifferences in operative time, total touching time, and SurgTLX scores showed no statistical significance ([Formula: see text]). However, when assessing the invasiveness of the simulated intervention, the comparison revealed a statistically significant difference ([Formula: see text]). Participants felt AR could be useful for various surgeries, especially for liver, sigmoid, and pancreatic resections (100%). Almost all participants agreed that AR could potentially lead to improved surgical parameters, such as operative time (83%), complication rate (83%), and identifying risk structures (83%).ConclusionAccording to our results, AR may have great potential in visceral surgery and based on the objective measures of the study, may improve surgeons' performance in terms of an atraumatic approach. In this pilot study, participants consistently took more time to complete the task, had more contact with the vascular tree, were significantly more invasive, and scored higher on the SurgTLX survey than with AR.