Infectious diseases now · 2021
E-learning versus face-to-face training: Comparison of two learning methods for Lyme borreliosis.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Gaudin M, Tanguy G, Plagne M, Saussac A, Hansmann Y, Jaulhac B, Kelly M, Ouchchane L, Lesens O, expert group for the teaching of Lyme disease
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To compare two learning methods for Lyme disease (e-learning versus face-to-face training) to assess knowledge and know-how.
METHODS: The study population was volunteer general medicine residents and family physicians (FP). Face-to-face training on Lyme disease was offered to each group. E-learning training was then offered to those who had not attended the face-to-face training. Theoretical knowledge was assessed by an identical pre- and post-test questionnaire and know-how by a script concordance test.
RESULTS: Seventy learners (47 FPs and 23 general medicine residents) were included in the face-to-face training group and 61 (33 FPs and 28 general medicine residents) in the e-learning group. The pre- and post-test scores were significantly improved in the FP group (difference of 29.3±1.9 [P<0.0001] out of 100) as well as in the general medicine resident group (difference of 38.2±2.7 [P<0.0001] out of 100). E-learning was more effective than face-to-face training, particularly among general medicine residents (progression of mean difference of 44.3±3.4/100 vs. 30.9±4.0/100; P=0.0138) and to a lesser extent among FPs (progression of 25.3±2.3/100 vs. 31.9±2.7/100; P=0.0757). Forty-six script concordance tests were completed by FPs and 20 by general medicine residents. Script concordance test results did not seem significant between the subgroups.
CONCLUSIONS: E-learning seems to be a good alternative to face-to-face training for Lyme disease. It seems to be more effective than face-to-face training for the acquisition of theoretical knowledge. The script concordance test evaluation of know-how did not show any difference between the two learning methods.
METHODS: The study population was volunteer general medicine residents and family physicians (FP). Face-to-face training on Lyme disease was offered to each group. E-learning training was then offered to those who had not attended the face-to-face training. Theoretical knowledge was assessed by an identical pre- and post-test questionnaire and know-how by a script concordance test.
RESULTS: Seventy learners (47 FPs and 23 general medicine residents) were included in the face-to-face training group and 61 (33 FPs and 28 general medicine residents) in the e-learning group. The pre- and post-test scores were significantly improved in the FP group (difference of 29.3±1.9 [P<0.0001] out of 100) as well as in the general medicine resident group (difference of 38.2±2.7 [P<0.0001] out of 100). E-learning was more effective than face-to-face training, particularly among general medicine residents (progression of mean difference of 44.3±3.4/100 vs. 30.9±4.0/100; P=0.0138) and to a lesser extent among FPs (progression of 25.3±2.3/100 vs. 31.9±2.7/100; P=0.0757). Forty-six script concordance tests were completed by FPs and 20 by general medicine residents. Script concordance test results did not seem significant between the subgroups.
CONCLUSIONS: E-learning seems to be a good alternative to face-to-face training for Lyme disease. It seems to be more effective than face-to-face training for the acquisition of theoretical knowledge. The script concordance test evaluation of know-how did not show any difference between the two learning methods.