| Literature DB >> 33865366 |
Sophia M Schmitz1, Sandra Schipper2,3, Martin Lemos4, Patrick H Alizai2, Elda Kokott2, Jonathan F Brozat5, Ulf P Neumann2,6, Tom F Ulmer2,6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: During the worldwide COVID-19 pandemic, the quality of surgical education experiences sudden major restrictions. Students' presence in the operating theater and on wards is reduced to a bare minimum and face-to-face teaching is diminished. Aim of this study was therefore to evaluate alternative but feasible educational concepts, such as an online-only-platform for undergraduates.Entities:
Keywords: Blended learning; COVID 19; Flipped classroom; Surgical education; Virtual curriculum
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33865366 PMCID: PMC8052764 DOI: 10.1186/s12893-021-01203-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Surg ISSN: 1471-2482 Impact factor: 2.102
Fig. 1Design of a virtual curriculum for undergraduate surgical education. Course preparation included video-based preparation in the experimental group and text book-based preparation in the control group. A written exam was taken by both groups followed by an online tutorial the next day. Time for preparation was one week for both groups
Fig. 2Percentage correct, incorrect and ‘don’t know’ (DK) choices for the experimental (white) and control group (grey). There was a significantly higher percentage correct in the experimental group compared to control group as well as a significantly lower percentage incorrect choices. *: p = – 04, ***: p = 0.0001
Fig. 3In this figure the mean preparation time in minutes (left axis, black bars) and the according percentage of correct choices (right axis, grey bars) is shown for the experimental and the control group. There was a significant difference in the percentage of correct choices between the experimental and control group (Significance bar not shown). ***: p = 0.0001
Fig. 4In this figure the post-interventional workload, rating for the interest in surgery, and the career goal are displayed for the two groups. Rating was performed with a score ranging from 0 (lowest) to 100 (highest). There were no statistically significant differences between control and experimental group for any of these items