• Acad Med · Mar 2015

    Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study

    A comparison of Web-based and small-group palliative and end-of-life care curricula: a quasi-randomized controlled study at one institution.

    • Frank C Day, Malathi Srinivasan, Claudia Der-Martirosian, Erin Griffin, Jerome R Hoffman, and Michael S Wilkes.
    • Dr. Day is associate professor, Emergency Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California. Dr. Srinivasan is associate professor, Internal Medicine, University of California, Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento, California. Dr. Der-Martirosian is a health research scientist, Veterans Emergency Management Evaluation Center (VEMEC), Veterans Affairs, North Hills, California. Dr. Griffin is a senior statistician, University of California, Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento, California. Dr. Hoffman is professor of medicine emeritus, University of California, Los Angeles David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California. Dr. Wilkes is professor of medicine, Office of the Dean, University of California, Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento, California.
    • Acad Med. 2015 Mar 1; 90 (3): 331-7.

    PurposeFew studies have compared the effect of Web-based eLearning versus small-group learning on medical student outcomes. Palliative and end-of-life (PEOL) education is ideal for this comparison, given uneven access to PEOL experts and content nationally.MethodIn 2010, the authors enrolled all third-year medical students at the University of California, Davis School of Medicine into a quasi-randomized controlled trial of Web-based interactive education (eDoctoring) compared with small-group education (Doctoring) on PEOL clinical content over two months. Students participated in three 3-hour PEOL sessions with similar content. Outcomes included a 24-item PEOL-specific self-efficacy scale with three domains (diagnosis/treatment [Cronbach alpha=0.92; CI: 0.91-0.93], communication/prognosis [alpha=0.95; CI: 0.93-0.96], and social impact/self-care [alpha=0.91; CI: 0.88-0.92]); 8 knowledge items; 10 curricular advantage/disadvantages; and curricular satisfaction (both students and faculty).ResultsStudents were randomly assigned to Web-based eDoctoring (n=48) or small-group Doctoring (n=71) curricula. Self-efficacy and knowledge improved equivalently between groups (e.g., prognosis self-efficacy, 19%; knowledge, 10%-42%). Student and faculty ratings of the Web-based eDoctoring curriculum and the small-group Doctoring curriculum were equivalent for most goals, and overall satisfaction was equivalent for each, with a trend toward decreased eDoctoring student satisfaction.ConclusionsFindings showed equivalent gains in self-efficacy and knowledge between students participating in a Web-based PEOL curriculum in comparison with students learning similar content in a small-group format. Web-based curricula can standardize content presentation when local teaching expertise is limited, but it may lead to decreased user satisfaction.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…