Jennifer Tomesko1, Riva Touger-Decker1, Margaret Dreker2, Rena Zelig1, James Scott Parrott3. 1. Department of Nutritional Sciences, School of Health Professions, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Newark, NJ, USA. 2. George F. Smith Library of the Health Sciences, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Newark, NJ, USA. 3. Departments of Nutritional Sciences, Interdisciplinary Studies and Epidemiology, School of Health Professions, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Newark, NJ, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To explore knowledge and skill acquisition outcomes related to learning physical examination (PE) through computer-assisted instruction (CAI) compared with a face-to-face (F2F) approach. METHOD: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis published between January 2001 and December 2016 was conducted. Databases searched included Medline, Cochrane, CINAHL, ERIC, Ebsco, Scopus, and Web of Science. Studies were synthesized by study design, intervention, and outcomes. Statistical analyses included DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model. RESULTS: In total, 7 studies were included in the review, and 5 in the meta-analysis. There were no statistically significant differences for knowledge (mean difference [MD] = 5.39, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -2.05 to 12.84) or skill acquisition (MD = 0.35, 95% CI: -5.30 to 6.01). CONCLUSIONS: The evidence does not suggest a strong consistent preference for either CAI or F2F instruction to teach students/trainees PE. Further research is needed to identify conditions which examine knowledge and skill acquisition outcomes that favor one mode of instruction over the other.
PURPOSE: To explore knowledge and skill acquisition outcomes related to learning physical examination (PE) through computer-assisted instruction (CAI) compared with a face-to-face (F2F) approach. METHOD: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis published between January 2001 and December 2016 was conducted. Databases searched included Medline, Cochrane, CINAHL, ERIC, Ebsco, Scopus, and Web of Science. Studies were synthesized by study design, intervention, and outcomes. Statistical analyses included DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model. RESULTS: In total, 7 studies were included in the review, and 5 in the meta-analysis. There were no statistically significant differences for knowledge (mean difference [MD] = 5.39, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -2.05 to 12.84) or skill acquisition (MD = 0.35, 95% CI: -5.30 to 6.01). CONCLUSIONS: The evidence does not suggest a strong consistent preference for either CAI or F2F instruction to teach students/trainees PE. Further research is needed to identify conditions which examine knowledge and skill acquisition outcomes that favor one mode of instruction over the other.
Authors: David A Cook; Anthony J Levinson; Sarah Garside; Denise M Dupras; Patricia J Erwin; Victor M Montori Journal: JAMA Date: 2008-09-10 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Larissa Shamseer; David Moher; Mike Clarke; Davina Ghersi; Alessandro Liberati; Mark Petticrew; Paul Shekelle; Lesley A Stewart Journal: BMJ Date: 2015-01-02
Authors: Claire A Surr; Sahdia Parveen; Sarah J Smith; Michelle Drury; Cara Sass; Sarah Burden; Jan Oyebode Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2020-06-05 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Lorainne Tudor Car; Selina Poon; Bhone Myint Kyaw; David A Cook; Victoria Ward; Rifat Atun; Azeem Majeed; Jamie Johnston; Rianne M J J van der Kleij; Mariam Molokhia; Florian V Wangenheim; Martin Lupton; Niels Chavannes; Onyema Ajuebor; Charles G Prober; Josip Car Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2022-03-17 Impact factor: 7.076