| Literature DB >> 35059854 |
Enoch Ogbonnaya Uche1, Jimmy Sundblom2, Izuchukwu Iloabachie3, Ignatius I Ozoh4, Andrew Alalade5, David Revesz2, Ulrika Sandvik6, Martin Olsson6, Wilfred C Mezue3, Magnus Tisell7, Mats Ryttlefors2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Disruptions in global surgery educational routines by the COVID-19 pandemic have elicited demands for alternative formats for rendering qualitative neurosurgical education. This study presents application of a novel model of online neurosurgical course, the Lecture-Panel-Discussion Model (LPDM).Entities:
Keywords: Andragogy; Global surgery; Lecture-Panel-Discussion Model; Neurosurgical education; Pedagogy
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35059854 PMCID: PMC8776360 DOI: 10.1007/s00701-021-05071-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Acta Neurochir (Wien) ISSN: 0001-6268 Impact factor: 2.816
Fig. 1Participant status and country profile, n = 71
Course day Likert summary
| Course day | Median Likert rating |
|---|---|
| Day 1 | 4.45 ± 0.1 |
| Day 2 | 4.55 ± 0.2 |
| Overall | 4.65 ± 0.1 |
Course day 1 performance profile
| Course day 1 | Median Likert rating |
|---|---|
| A. Lectures | |
| Microneurosurgery tips and tricks | 4.70 |
| Intraventricular endoscopy | 4.20 |
| Skull base endoscopy | 4.50 |
| Intraoperative ultrasound as a neurosurgical tool | 4.50 |
| Potentials and limitations of neuronavigation | 4.60 |
| Median lecture rating | |
| B. Panel review | |
| Morning session | 4.80 |
| Afternoon session | 4.30 |
| Median panel rating | |
| C. Interactive case discussion | |
Data in italics were used to identify the median score of the lecture, panel and case discussion ratings
Course day 2 ratings
| Course day 2 | Median Likert rating |
|---|---|
| A. Lectures | |
| Bone modeling and fusion | 4.65 |
| Spinal fixation techniques 1 (basic principles) | 4.65 |
| Spinal fixation techniques (ACDF and lumbar spinal fusion) | 4.55 |
| Challenges of technical maintenance of neurosurgical equipment in sub-Saharan Africa | 4.0 |
| Global neurosurgery in sub-Saharan Africa; navigating the challenges to harness salient benefits | 4.90 |
| Median lecture rating | |
| B. Panel review | |
| Morning session | 4.80 |
| Afternoon session | 4.50 |
| Median panel rating | |
| C. Interactive case discussion | |
Data in italics were used to identify the median score of the lecture, panel and case discussion ratings
Fig. 2Course day ratings (median scores of daily course events (%))
Fig. 3Line graph showing course module median Likert ratings (max = 5) U = 24.5, Z = 1.86, P = 0.03
Participants’ views
| Course goal | Participant rating (%) |
|---|---|
| Adherence to COVID 19 guidelines | 98% compliance |
| Delivery of competency-based learning | 90.4% |
| Delivery of neurosurgical knowledge relevant to practice | 90.4% |
| Recommendability of course to colleagues | 88.5% |
| Likelihood of attending a future course by SANC | 88.5 |