BACKGROUND: Little evidence exists to guide the selection of methods for teaching clinical diagnosis. PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy, student preference, and cost of a Web-based (WB) program versus a standardized patient (SP) encounter for teaching clinical diagnosis skills to 2nd-year medical students. METHODS: Randomized, controlled, crossover study comparing WB versus SP-based teaching for the clinical diagnosis of abdominal pain and headache. Outcome measures were performance on a 2-case SP examination (scored on the basis of a checklist completed by a faculty observer and an objective score on a postencounter subjective-objective assessment plan [SOAP] note), format preferences as assessed by end-of-course evaluations, and cost. RESULTS:Thirty students consented to participate. WB and SP training produced similar scores on both the Abdominal Pain checklist (66% vs. 62%; p = .17) and Headache checklist (56% vs. 63%; p = .07). WB training produced a higher score on the Abdominal Pain SOAP note (69% vs. 47%; p = .006), but not the Headache SOAP note (69% vs. 67%; p = .85). Students rated the SP format higher than the WB format on all 7 preference measures. Start-up costs were estimated at 2,190 dollars for the SP format and 2,250 dollars for the WB format. Ongoing costs per case per student were estimated to be 45 dollars for the SP format and 30 dollars for the WB format. CONCLUSIONS:WB and SP learning outcomes were comparable, but students preferred the SP format. Start-up costs were comparable, but the ongoing costs of the WB format were less expensive, suggesting that WB teaching may be a viable strategy.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Little evidence exists to guide the selection of methods for teaching clinical diagnosis. PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy, student preference, and cost of a Web-based (WB) program versus a standardized patient (SP) encounter for teaching clinical diagnosis skills to 2nd-year medical students. METHODS: Randomized, controlled, crossover study comparing WB versus SP-based teaching for the clinical diagnosis of abdominal pain and headache. Outcome measures were performance on a 2-case SP examination (scored on the basis of a checklist completed by a faculty observer and an objective score on a postencounter subjective-objective assessment plan [SOAP] note), format preferences as assessed by end-of-course evaluations, and cost. RESULTS: Thirty students consented to participate. WB and SP training produced similar scores on both the Abdominal Pain checklist (66% vs. 62%; p = .17) and Headache checklist (56% vs. 63%; p = .07). WB training produced a higher score on the Abdominal Pain SOAP note (69% vs. 47%; p = .006), but not the Headache SOAP note (69% vs. 67%; p = .85). Students rated the SP format higher than the WB format on all 7 preference measures. Start-up costs were estimated at 2,190 dollars for the SP format and 2,250 dollars for the WB format. Ongoing costs per case per student were estimated to be 45 dollars for the SP format and 30 dollars for the WB format. CONCLUSIONS: WB and SP learning outcomes were comparable, but students preferred the SP format. Start-up costs were comparable, but the ongoing costs of the WB format were less expensive, suggesting that WB teaching may be a viable strategy.
Authors: Sara E Benjamin; Deborah F Tate; Shrikant I Bangdiwala; Brian H Neelon; Alice S Ammerman; Janice M Dodds; Dianne S Ward Journal: Matern Child Health J Date: 2007-08-23
Authors: Clarence D Kreiter; Thomas Haugen; Timothy Leaven; Christopher Goerdt; Nancy Rosenthal; William C McGaghie; Fred Dee Journal: Med Educ Online Date: 2011-01-14
Authors: Pradeep Paul George; Nikos Papachristou; José Marcano Belisario; Wei Wang; Petra A Wark; Ziva Cotic; Kristine Rasmussen; René Sluiter; Eva Riboli-Sasco; Lorainne Tudor Car; Eve Marie Musulanov; Joseph Antonio Molina; Bee Hoon Heng; Yanfeng Zhang; Erica Lynette Wheeler; Najeeb Al Shorbaji; Azeem Majeed; Josip Car Journal: J Glob Health Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 4.413