| Literature DB >> 25616272 |
Eleni Dafli1, Panagiotis Antoniou, Lazaros Ioannidis, Nicholas Dombros, David Topps, Panagiotis D Bamidis.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Virtual patients are interactive computer simulations that are increasingly used as learning activities in modern health care education, especially in teaching clinical decision making. A key challenge is how to retrieve and repurpose virtual patients as unique types of educational resources between different platforms because of the lack of standardized content-retrieving and repurposing mechanisms. Semantic Web technologies provide the capability, through structured information, for easy retrieval, reuse, repurposing, and exchange of virtual patients between different systems.Entities:
Keywords: data sharing; educational assessment; medical education; patient simulation; problem-based learning; semantics
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25616272 PMCID: PMC4319094 DOI: 10.2196/jmir.3933
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Med Internet Res ISSN: 1438-8871 Impact factor: 5.428
Overview of the mEducator metadata schema.
| Mandatory fields | Data type | Optional fields | Data type |
| Identifier | Number | Educational objectives | Free text |
| Title | Free text | Educational outcomes | Option from code list |
| Creator | Free text | Assessment methods | Free text |
| Intellectual property rights license | Option from code list | Educational context | Free text |
| Language of the resource | Option from code list | Technical description | Free text |
| Language of the metadata | Option from code list | Discipline | Free text |
| Creation date | Option from date picker | Discipline speciality | Free text |
| Metadata creation date | Option from date picker |
|
|
| Keywords | Free text |
|
|
| Description | Free text |
|
|
Figure 1Overview of the mEducator interaction architecture.
Figure 2Overview of the mEducator3.0 OpenLabyrinth module.
Figure 3Methodology of the evaluation process.
Testing scenarios for the assessment of the OLabX virtual patient creation, search, retrieval, and repurposing platform.
| User tests | Scenario 1 | Scenario 2 | Scenario 3 |
| Aim | Familiarize users with the virtual patient creation process | Familiarize users with searching of resources | Familiarize users with virtual patient repurposing |
| Objectives | Show users how to log in; explain the basic functions involved in virtual patient creation; explain the notion of virtual patient metadata | Show users how to search for virtual patients, in comparison to simple search engines; explain the role of basic search attributes; explain how metadata enhances search functions | Show users the role of repurposing; explain intellectual property rights (IPR) metadata; demonstrate completion of assessment metadata |
| Expected learning outcomes | (1) Login to OLabX successfully, (2) understand the notion of metadata to trace it at a later stage, (3) enter the appropriate metadata using the system forms, (4) save the metadata in OLabX, and (5) visualize the entered metadata | (1) Specify the search attributes, (2) perform the search, and (3) appreciate and analyze the obtained results | (1) Perform case repurposing, (2) specify the IPR metadata for their own resources, (3) correctly enter repurposing metadata, (4) search for repurposed resources, and (5) appreciate and analyze the obtained results |
Figure 4Formative assessment results from the system usability evaluation from users (MD professionals), placing the OLabX higher than 30% of all products tested.
Figure 5Formative assessment results from the system usability evaluation from users (students and staff), placing the OLabX higher than 40% of all products tested.
Heuristic usability feedback from expert reviewers.
| Feedback | Recommendations/Solutions | |
|
| ||
|
| Links should perhaps be “link colored” | Use common interface conventions of Web services |
|
| All tabs should be visible by default | Provide an overview of the creation process steps at start |
|
| ||
|
| During the test the error messages after submitting a resource were not useful to common user | Ensure the readability and relevance of the error messages to the user |
|
| ||
|
| Date should be automatically inserted | Use automatic calendar functionalities when possible |
|
| No provisions for multilingual keywords | Multilingual support should be implemented |
Heuristic efficacy evaluation feedback from expert reviewers.
| Phase of search process | Strengths | Weaknesses |
| Expressing the search | Letter casing and partial matches allowed; IPR and/or language can be used | No content overview; no real-time phrase recognition suggestions; no control over the size of results |
| Launching the search | Some implicit actions are included | Some explicit actions are missing (back to results, new search); a complete schema is problematic for locating key functions on the interface; sorting options should be visible by default |
| Reading messages and outcomes | Textual preview of results | No search progress info; no summary; no control over size of result set; no control over sequencing/order |
| Formulating the next step |
| System provides no automated feedback/support for refining the search |
| Compiling or disseminating insight |
| System provides no corresponding functionalities |
| Comments and recommendations | The extensive metadata schema presentation in the interface invites user to exploring the filtering of resources | The lack of support in terms of interface usability for user guidance needs to be corrected to fully exploit the richness of the schema |
Figure 6Repurposing types of virtual patients produced during the evaluation scenarios of OLabX.
Results from the evaluation of the output quality (repurposed virtual patients) from users as part of the formative assessment.
| Questionnaire subset theme and questions | N | N/A | Rating,a n | |||||
|
|
|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Q1. While working on this case, I felt I had to make the same decisions a doctor would make in real life. | 48 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 6 | 36 | 2 |
|
| Q2. While working on this case, I felt I was the doctor caring for this patient. | 48 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 12 | 25 | 6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Q3. While working through this case, I was actively engaged in gathering the information I needed (eg, history questions, physical exams, laboratory tests) to characterize the patient’s problem. | 48 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 11 | 16 | 12 |
|
| Q4. While working through this case, I was actively engaged in revising my initial image of the patient’s problem as new information became available. | 48 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 10 | 27 | 5 |
|
| Q5. While working through this case, I was actively engaged in creating a short summary of the patient’s problem using medical terms. | 48 | 2 | 0 | 4 | 11 | 25 | 6 |
|
| Q6. While working through this case, I was actively engaged in thinking about which findings supported or refuted each diagnosis in my differential diagnosis. | 48 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 9 | 24 | 10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Q7. I felt that the case was at the appropriate level of difficulty for my level of training. | 48 | 5 | 5 | 15 | 10 | 10 | 3 |
|
| Q8. The questions I was asked while working through this case were helpful in enhancing my diagnostic reasoning in this case. | 48 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 11 | 23 | 11 |
|
| Q9. The feedback I received was helpful in enhancing my diagnostic reasoning in this case. | 48 | 3 | 1 | 6 | 16 | 15 | 7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Q10. After completing this case, I feel better prepared to confirm a diagnosis and exclude differential diagnoses in a real-life patient with this complaint. | 48 | 2 | 7 | 2 | 14 | 6 | 7 |
|
| Q11. After completing this case, I feel better prepared to care for a real-life patient with this complaint. | 48 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 9 | 21 | 10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Q12. Overall, working through this case was a worthwhile learning experience. | 48 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 24 | 14 |
a 1=strongly disagree; 2=disagree; 3=neutral; 4=agree; 5=strongly agree.