| Literature DB >> 35042505 |
Shusuke Yagi1,2, Daiju Fukuda3, Takayuki Ise3, Koji Yamaguchi3, Kenya Kusunose3, Muneyuki Kadota3, Yutaka Kawabata3, Tomomi Matsuura3, Tomohiro Soga4, Hirotsugu Yamada5, Takeshi Soeki3, Tetsuzo Wakatsuki3, Shinji Kawahito4, Masataka Sata3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused an unprecedented disruption in medical education. Students and lecturers had to adapt to online education. The current study aimed to investigate the level of satisfaction and future preference for online lectures among clinical clerkship students and elucidated the factors that affect these outcomes.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; Clinical clerkship; Online lectures
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35042505 PMCID: PMC8765107 DOI: 10.1186/s12909-021-03096-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Med Educ ISSN: 1472-6920 Impact factor: 2.463
Fig. 1Illustration of the study protocol
Questions for medical students and lecturers
| Questions for medical students | |
|---|---|
| How would you rate online lectures on a scale of 1 to 10 on the dimensions total satisfaction and future preference, if the score of on-site lectures was 5 points? | |
| How would you rate online lectures on a scale of 1 to 10 on the degree of comprehensibility of online lectures, if the score of on-site lectures was 5 points? | |
| How would you rate online lectures on a scale of 1 to 10 on the degree of ease of asking questions to lectures, if the score of on-site lectures was 5 points? | |
| How would you rate online lectures on a scale of 1 to 10 on the degree of ease of debating with students and lectures, if the score of on-site lectures was 5 points? | |
| How would you rate online lectures on a scale of 1 to 10 on the degree of accessibility of online lectures, if the score of on-site lectures was 5 points? | |
| How would you rate online lectures on a scale of 1 to 10 on the total satisfaction and future preference, if the score of on-site lectures was 5 points? |
Fig. 2Total satisfaction and future preference of the students as a primary outcome. Points for onsite lectures were fixed at 5 as a reference. ** P < 0.01
Fig. 3Comprehensibility, ease of asking questions, ease of debating, and accessibility as secondary outcomes. Points for onsite lectures were fixed at 5 as a reference. ** P < 0.01
Fig. 4Comprehensibility, ease of asking question, ease of debating, and accessibility over the course of time. Points for onsite lectures were fixed at 5 as a reference
Fig. 5Future preference of the lecturers. Points for onsite lectures were fixed at 5 as a reference. ** P < 0.01
Multiple regression analysis for determinants of total satisfaction
| Variables | Coefficient | 95% Confidence Interval | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Comprehensibility | 0.1 | -0.3 to 0.5 | 0.69 |
| Ease of asking questions | 0.3 | -0.1 o 0.6 | 0.11 |
| Ease of debating | 0.1 | −-0.3 to 0.5 | 0.56 |
| Accessibility | 0.2 | 0.1 to 0.4 | 0.03 |
Multiple regression analysis for determinants of future preference
| Variables | Coefficient | 95% Confidence Interval | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Comprehensibility | 0.5 | 0.1 to 0.9 | 0.02 |
| Ease of asking questions | 0.1 | -0.2 to 0.4 | 0.69 |
| Ease of debating | 0.1 | -0.2 to 0.4 | 0.35 |
| Accessibility | 0.3 | 0.1 to 0.5 | <0.001 |