...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>BMC Anesthesiology >Pilot study comparing simulation-based and didactic lecture-based critical care teaching for final-year medical students
【24h】

Pilot study comparing simulation-based and didactic lecture-based critical care teaching for final-year medical students

机译：最终医学生比较基于模拟和基于教学的重症监护教学的先导研究

获取原文
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Background Simulation-based medical education has rapidly evolved over the past two decades, despite this, there are few published reports of its use in critical care teaching. We hypothesised that simulation-based teaching of a critical care topic to final-year medical students is superior to lecture-based teaching. Methods Thirty-nine final-year medical students were randomly assigned to either simulation-based or lecture-based teaching in the chosen critical care topic. The study was conducted over a 6-week period. Efficacy of each teaching method was compared through use of multiple choice questionnaires (MCQ) - baseline, post-teaching and 2 week follow-up. Student satisfaction was evaluated by means of a questionnaire. Feasibility and resource requirements were documented by teachers. Results Eighteen students were randomised to simulation-based, and 21 to lecture-based teaching. There were no differences in age and gender between groups (p?>?0.05). Simulation proved more resource intensive requiring specialised equipment, two instructors, and increased duration of teaching sessions (126.7?min (SD?=?4.71) vs 68.3?min (SD?=?2.36)). Students ranked simulation-based teaching higher with regard to enjoyment (p?=?0.0044), interest (p?=?0.0068), relevance to taught subject (p?=?0.0313), ease of understanding (p?=?0.0476) and accessibility to posing questions (p?=?0.001). Both groups demonstrated improvement in post-teaching MCQ from baseline (p?=?0.0002), with greater improvement seen among the simulation group (p?=?0.0387), however, baseline scores were higher among the lecture group. The results of the 2-week follow-up MCQ and post-teaching MCQ were not statistically significant when each modality were compared. Discussion Simulation was perceived as more enjoyable by students. Although there was a greater improvement in post-teaching MCQ among the simulator group, baseline scores were higher among lecture group which limits interpretation of efficacy. Simulation is more resource intensive, as demonstrated by increased duration and personnel required, and this may have affected our results. Conclusions The current pilot may be of use in informing future studies in this area.
机译：背景技术尽管如此，基于仿真的医学教育在过去的二十年中发展迅速，尽管很少有已发表的报道将其用于重症监护教学。我们假设，对最终医学专业学生的重症监护主题的基于模拟的教学要优于基于讲座的教学。方法在所选的重症监护主题中，将39名最后一年的医学生随机分配到基于模拟或基于讲座的教学中。这项研究历时6周。通过选择题调查表（MCQ）-基线，教学后和2周的随访比较了每种教学方法的效果。通过问卷调查评估学生的满意度。老师记录了可行性和资源需求。结果18名学生被随机分配到基于模拟的教学中，21名被随机分配到基于讲座的教学中。两组之间的年龄和性别均无差异（p≥0.05）。模拟证明需要更多的资源，需要专用的设备，两名讲师，并增加了教学时间（126.7分钟（SD等于4.71）比68.3分钟（SD等于2.36）。学生在娱乐性（p？=？0.0044），兴趣（p？=？0.0068），与所教科目的相关性（p？=？0.0313），易理解性（p？=？0.0476）方面，对基于模拟的教学的评价较高。和提出问题的可能性（p？=？0.001）。两组均显示出从基线开始的教学后MCQ的改善（p <= 0.0002），在模拟组中观察到的改善更大（p <= 0.0387），然而，演讲组的基线分数更高。当比较每种方式时，为期2周的随访MCQ和教学后MCQ的结果在统计学上不显着。学生认为讨论模拟更有趣。尽管模拟器组的教学后MCQ有了更大的改善，但是演讲组的基线分数更高，这限制了对疗效的解释。仿真的资源消耗更多，如持续时间和所需人员的增加所证明，这可能会影响我们的结果。结论目前的试验可能有助于该领域的未来研究。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号