Jason Atkins Beyea1, Eric Wong, Matthew Bromwich, W Wayne Weston, Kevin Fung. 1. Div. of Head and Neck Oncology/Reconstructive Surgery, Dept. of Otolaryngology, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Western Ontario, London Health Sciences Centre-Victoria Hospital, 800 Commissioners Road East, London, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To compare the pass rate of residents performing the Particle Repositioning Maneuver (PRM) after one of three interventions: 1) small group PRM instruction (SG); 2) standard classroom instruction (CI); and 3) Web-based learning module (WM). We hypothesize that our Web-based learning module is more effective than CI and as effective as SG. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective randomized control trial. METHODS: The study population includes all family medicine residents at the University of Western Ontario. On day 0, all subjects were tested. Residents were then randomized to one of three intervention groups: 1) SG, 2) CI, or 3) WM. On day 7, the residents were again tested. Observers were blinded to the intervention type. Testing (day 0 and day 7) was performed using the DizzyFIX (Clearwater Clinical Ltd., London, Ontario, Canada), a pass/fail test, and evaluation by a trained observer (correct or incorrect). RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in pass rates between the three groups before the interventions (DizzyFIX: P = .2096, observer: P = .3710). After the interventions, DizzyFIX testing pass rates were 50.0% SG, 60.0% CI and 100.0% WM (P = .3564). Observer testing pass rates were 85.7% SG, 28.6% CI, and 83.3% WM (P = .0431). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that our Web-based learning module for the PRM is comparable to small-group clinical instruction, and superior to standard classroom instruction for teaching the PRM when evaluated by a trained observer.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To compare the pass rate of residents performing the Particle Repositioning Maneuver (PRM) after one of three interventions: 1) small group PRM instruction (SG); 2) standard classroom instruction (CI); and 3) Web-based learning module (WM). We hypothesize that our Web-based learning module is more effective than CI and as effective as SG. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective randomized control trial. METHODS: The study population includes all family medicine residents at the University of Western Ontario. On day 0, all subjects were tested. Residents were then randomized to one of three intervention groups: 1) SG, 2) CI, or 3) WM. On day 7, the residents were again tested. Observers were blinded to the intervention type. Testing (day 0 and day 7) was performed using the DizzyFIX (Clearwater Clinical Ltd., London, Ontario, Canada), a pass/fail test, and evaluation by a trained observer (correct or incorrect). RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in pass rates between the three groups before the interventions (DizzyFIX: P = .2096, observer: P = .3710). After the interventions, DizzyFIX testing pass rates were 50.0% SG, 60.0% CI and 100.0% WM (P = .3564). Observer testing pass rates were 85.7% SG, 28.6% CI, and 83.3% WM (P = .0431). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that our Web-based learning module for the PRM is comparable to small-group clinical instruction, and superior to standard classroom instruction for teaching the PRM when evaluated by a trained observer.