Dataset Information

Choosing Wisely in Pre-clinical Medical Education: a Direct Comparison of Active Learning Methods for Teaching Metabolic Liver Disease.

ABSTRACT:

Background

With the movement away from lectures and towards active learning sessions, medical school faculty must choose a format that fits the learning objectives and is achievable with available resources. Small groups bring organizational challenges including additional faculty and classrooms. Large groups are an opportunity to conduct case-based active learning exercises with fewer faculty. Our study compares the learning effectiveness of an active learning session on metabolic liver disease conducted in both the small group and large group formats.

Methods

All MS1 students at University of Vermont Larner College of Medicine (LCOM) (n = 120) were randomized to participate in either the small or large group session. The same pre-learning videos and computer-based active learning module were used for all students in both session types. A post-session questionnaire was administered, and student exam performance was analyzed to evaluate each session type on the following criteria: (1) student preparedness for the session, (2) student perceptions of the session's learning effectiveness, (3) learner knowledge upon completion of the session, and (4) knowledge retention at 10 days.

Results

No statistically significant differences were found between the large and small group cohorts on student perceptions of learning effectiveness or knowledge assessment, both immediate and delayed. Students assigned to the large group did choose their collaborators differently than those in the small group, tending more often to work with their friends.

Conclusion

When organized well, a large group active learning format may be used in place of a small group without diminishing the learning effectiveness of the activity.

SUBMITTER: Carson E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8368552 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPatients are important stakeholders in reducing low-value care, yet mechanisms for optimizing their involvement in low-value care remain unclear. To explore the role of patients in the development and implementation of Choosing Wisely recommendations to reduce low-value care and to assess the likelihood that existing patient resources will change patient health behaviour.MethodsThree phased mixed-methods study: 1) content analysis of all publicly available Choosing Wisely clinician lists and patient resources from the United States of America and Canada. Quantitative data was summarized with frequencies and free text comments were analyzed with qualitative thematic content analysis; 2) semi-structured telephone interviews with a purposive sample of representatives of professional societies who created Choosing Wisely clinician lists and members of the public (including patients and family members). Interviews were transcribed verbatim, and two researchers conducted qualitative template analysis; 3) evaluation of Choosing Wisely patient resources. Two public partners were identified through the Calgary Critical Care Research Network and independently answered two free text questions "would this change your health behaviour" and "would you discuss this material with a healthcare provider". Free text data was analyzed by two researchers using thematic content analysis.ResultsFrom the content analysis of 136 Choosing Wisely clinician lists, six reported patient involvement in their development. From 148 patient resource documents that were mapped onto a conceptual framework (Inform, Activate, Collaborate) 64% described patient engagement at the level of Inform (educating patients). From 19 interviews stakeholder perceptions of patient involvement in reducing low-value care were captured by four themes: 1) impact of perceived power dynamics on the discussion of low-value care in the clinical interaction, 2) how to communicate about low-value care, 3) perceived barriers to patient involvement in reducing low-value care, and 4) suggested strategies to engage patients and families in Choosing Wisely initiatives. In the final phase of work in response to the question "would this change your health behaviour" two patient partners agreed 'yes' on 27% of patient resources.ConclusionsOpportunities exist to increase patient and family participation in initiatives to reduce low-value care.

Project description:BackgroundMajor disruptions and changes in education have occurred worldwide as a result of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic and the ensuing shift from in-person to online education. However, the effect of such changes on medical education, its magnitude, and the learning domains impacted by such rapid changes have not been adequately addressed, particularly with regard to objective assessment approaches.MethodsSecond-year medical students enrolled in our Medical English Course between 2019 and 2021 were recruited from Hokkaido University, Japan (N = 321) to participate in this study. We evaluated the potential impact of teaching styles on the academic performance of students before (2019; face-to-face) and during (2020; online; 2021; in-person and online) the pandemic. We examined the potential effect of three teaching styles--in-person (2019), online (2020), and a combination of these (2021) on the academic performance of medical students using: (i) subjective assessment of self-reported general English skills, including reading, writing, listening, and speaking; and (ii) objective assessment of medical terminology scores, evidence-based medicine (EBM) skills, and final written exam scores.ResultsIn-person education significantly improved listening and speaking skills in 2019 (p < 0.001). This trend was observed for writing skills in an online course in 2020 (p = 0.001). With the combined teaching method, students reported significant improvements in all four English skills. In our objective assessments, medical terminology improved significantly post-test versus pre-test for all three teaching styles, and we found that the online course did not adversely affect the gain in medical terminology knowledge during the course. Additionally, we did not find any significant differences across the three applied teaching styles regarding EBM skill levels. It is noteworthy that the students taking online courses had a significantly higher final exam score (mean ± SD; 82.8 ± 8.2) than in in-person (78.6 ± 8.8) and combined (79.7 ± 12.1) teaching styles.ConclusionsIn our study, the online/combined courses showed better academic outcomes compared to the face-to-face course in the preclinical clerkship. Although the current results need to be replicated on a larger scale, online/combined courses can continue and evolve in the post-pandemic education of medical students. Medical schools and institutions should consider incorporating such courses, especially combined courses, into their curricula in the future to improve the effectiveness, accessibility, and flexibility of medical education.