The Laryngoscope · 2009
Computer-assisted teaching of epistaxis management: a Randomized Controlled Trial.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Glicksman Jordan T, Brandt Michael G, Moukarbel Roger V, Rotenberg Brian, Fung Kevin
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether computer-assisted learning (CAL) is an effective tool for the instruction of technical skills.
STUDY DESIGN: Prospective blinded randomized-control trial conducted on a cohort of 47 first-year medical students.
METHODS: Students were instructed on two techniques of nasal packing (formal nasal pack and nasal tampon) for the management of epistaxis, using either a standard text-based article or a novel computer-based learning module. Students were evaluated on proper nasal packing technique using standardized subjective and objective outcome measures by three board-certified otolaryngologists. Blind assessments took place prior to and following instruction, using the assigned learning modality.
RESULTS: There were 47 participants enrolled in the study. Both groups demonstrated improvement in performance of both packing procedures following training. A significant post-training difference favoring CAL learners over text-based learners was observed, using the global assessment of skill for both packing techniques (P < .001). Additionally, a significant post-training difference favoring CAL learners over text-based learners was observed for all checklist items for the tampon pack and five of eight items on the formal pack checklist. The vast majority of students (94.6%) indicated that if given the choice, they would prefer to learn using CAL rather than by using text-based learning materials.
CONCLUSIONS: CAL learners demonstrated significantly greater improvement across both subjective and objective outcome measures when compared to the text-based group. Additionally, students favored learning via the CAL modality, which further suggests that CAL is a valuable means of imparting procedural knowledge to novice medical trainees.
STUDY DESIGN: Prospective blinded randomized-control trial conducted on a cohort of 47 first-year medical students.
METHODS: Students were instructed on two techniques of nasal packing (formal nasal pack and nasal tampon) for the management of epistaxis, using either a standard text-based article or a novel computer-based learning module. Students were evaluated on proper nasal packing technique using standardized subjective and objective outcome measures by three board-certified otolaryngologists. Blind assessments took place prior to and following instruction, using the assigned learning modality.
RESULTS: There were 47 participants enrolled in the study. Both groups demonstrated improvement in performance of both packing procedures following training. A significant post-training difference favoring CAL learners over text-based learners was observed, using the global assessment of skill for both packing techniques (P < .001). Additionally, a significant post-training difference favoring CAL learners over text-based learners was observed for all checklist items for the tampon pack and five of eight items on the formal pack checklist. The vast majority of students (94.6%) indicated that if given the choice, they would prefer to learn using CAL rather than by using text-based learning materials.
CONCLUSIONS: CAL learners demonstrated significantly greater improvement across both subjective and objective outcome measures when compared to the text-based group. Additionally, students favored learning via the CAL modality, which further suggests that CAL is a valuable means of imparting procedural knowledge to novice medical trainees.