Scott Bragg1, Kristen Hood Watson2, Donna Kern2, Andrea Wessell2, Alexander W Chessman2. 1. Department of Family Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, and Clinical Pharmacy and Outcomes Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina College of Pharmacy, Charleston, SC. 2. Department of Family Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Today's learners use multiple forms of social communication, such as text messaging, that offer a promising teaching tool for medical education. The purpose of this study was to evaluate a diabetes care curriculum delivered through text messages for third-year medical students on a rural family medicine clerkship. METHODS: A pilot study of 119 participants were compared in a parallel group randomized controlled trial evaluating medical student learning and satisfaction with text messages throughout rotation compared to an email with the same content in their first week of rotation. Participants completed a 10-question multiple-choice test and six survey questions upon completing the rotation. The primary outcome was a difference between test scores among the two groups, and student satisfaction with the educational intervention was a secondary outcome. RESULTS: A total of 85 participants successfully completed the study protocol (34 text messages and 51 email) and were included in a per protocol analysis. The average number of correct responses per test was 3.32 (SD 1.29) in the texting group and 3.69 (SD 1.53) in the email group (P=0.259). Student satisfaction with text messages was 3.68 (SD 0.87) compared to email at 2.02 (SD 0.95) when rating the educational intervention on a 1 to 5 Likert scale (1=poor, 3=average, and 5=excellent). CONCLUSIONS: Participant knowledge on a challenging posttest was not improved with text messages compared to an email in this pilot study. Satisfaction with text messages was primarily positive. Further study is needed to determine the effectiveness of this content delivery method.
INTRODUCTION: Today's learners use multiple forms of social communication, such as text messaging, that offer a promising teaching tool for medical education. The purpose of this study was to evaluate a diabetes care curriculum delivered through text messages for third-year medical students on a rural family medicine clerkship. METHODS: A pilot study of 119 participants were compared in a parallel group randomized controlled trial evaluating medical student learning and satisfaction with text messages throughout rotation compared to an email with the same content in their first week of rotation. Participants completed a 10-question multiple-choice test and six survey questions upon completing the rotation. The primary outcome was a difference between test scores among the two groups, and student satisfaction with the educational intervention was a secondary outcome. RESULTS: A total of 85 participants successfully completed the study protocol (34 text messages and 51 email) and were included in a per protocol analysis. The average number of correct responses per test was 3.32 (SD 1.29) in the texting group and 3.69 (SD 1.53) in the email group (P=0.259). Student satisfaction with text messages was 3.68 (SD 0.87) compared to email at 2.02 (SD 0.95) when rating the educational intervention on a 1 to 5 Likert scale (1=poor, 3=average, and 5=excellent). CONCLUSIONS: Participant knowledge on a challenging posttest was not improved with text messages compared to an email in this pilot study. Satisfaction with text messages was primarily positive. Further study is needed to determine the effectiveness of this content delivery method.
Authors: Hillary R Mount; Todd Zakrajsek; Miranda Huffman; Brandy Deffenbacher; Kara Gallagher; Ben Skinker; Gary Rivard; Stephanie Benson; Rex Dancel; Francis Buckman; Magdalena Hayes; Jonathan Jackson; Anthony J Viera Journal: Fam Med Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 1.756
Authors: Andrea L Wendling; Andrea E Wudyka; Julie P Phillips; Diane L Levine; Elie Mulhem; Anne Victoria Neale; Christopher P Morley Journal: Fam Med Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 1.756
Authors: Christopher J Gill; Ngoc Bao Le; Nafisa Halim; Cao Thi Hue Chi; Viet Ha Nguyen; Rachael Bonawitz; Pham Vu Hoang; Hoang Long Nguyen; Phan Thi Thu Huong; Anna Larson Williams; Ngoc Anh Le; Lora Sabin Journal: BMJ Glob Health Date: 2018-02-26
Authors: Laura Nichols; Dubert Guerrero; Devendranath Mannuru; Marc D Basson; Abe E Sahmoun; Dinesh Bande Journal: BMC Med Educ Date: 2022-07-28 Impact factor: 3.263