OBJECTIVES: 1. To evaluate the persistence of a training course on critical reading of medical articles by medical residents seven months after training. 2. To compare the persistence of training according to type of training (participative vs expositive). METHODS: We used the same groups of first year medical residents of a previous study. They had received seven months before a 30 hours training in the reading of research articles: Group I (N = 28) had a course of active participation by reading articles previous to meeting discussions; II (n = 17) exposition of research themes by active researchers; III (n = 23) same as II but with non-research trainers. Using an examination questionnaire developed and validated by us to explore critical reading of research papers, the trainees were scored after finishing their training (initial score). Seven months later we retested them using the same test (not all were retested: two were missing in groups I and III and six in Group II). Non parametric statistics were used to compare the groups (Wilcoxon, Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-Whitney). RESULTS: There were no intragroup differences of the retesting versus the initial median in the three groups (I had 17.5 vs 19 initial, II had 7 vs 13, III had 6 vs 3). In the initial testing, Groups I and II scored higher than III, but only Group I was higher than the other groups upon retesting (p < 0.006). CONCLUSION: An active participatory training to promote critical reading was better than the traditional training techniques still widely used.
OBJECTIVES: 1. To evaluate the persistence of a training course on critical reading of medical articles by medical residents seven months after training. 2. To compare the persistence of training according to type of training (participative vs expositive). METHODS: We used the same groups of first year medical residents of a previous study. They had received seven months before a 30 hours training in the reading of research articles: Group I (N = 28) had a course of active participation by reading articles previous to meeting discussions; II (n = 17) exposition of research themes by active researchers; III (n = 23) same as II but with non-research trainers. Using an examination questionnaire developed and validated by us to explore critical reading of research papers, the trainees were scored after finishing their training (initial score). Seven months later we retested them using the same test (not all were retested: two were missing in groups I and III and six in Group II). Non parametric statistics were used to compare the groups (Wilcoxon, Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-Whitney). RESULTS: There were no intragroup differences of the retesting versus the initial median in the three groups (I had 17.5 vs 19 initial, II had 7 vs 13, III had 6 vs 3). In the initial testing, Groups I and II scored higher than III, but only Group I was higher than the other groups upon retesting (p < 0.006). CONCLUSION: An active participatory training to promote critical reading was better than the traditional training techniques still widely used.
Authors: Javier Gongora-Ortega; Yolanda Segovia-Bernal; J de Jesus Valdivia-Martinez; J Martin Galaviz-DeAnda; Carlos A Prado-Aguilar Journal: BMC Med Educ Date: 2012-07-11 Impact factor: 2.463