A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

The Effectiveness of Self-Instructional Video vs. Classroom Teaching Method on Focused Assessment With Sonography in Trauma Among House Officers in University Hospital. | LitMetric

The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of self-instructional-video (SIV) and classroom training method (CTM) in learning Focus-Assessment with Sonography-in-Trauma (FAST) among house officers (HO). A randomized controlled study involving house officers working in the university hospital in Malaysia was conducted where participants were randomized into SIV group (intervention) and CTM group (control). Each group had to undergo a 4 h hands-on training. The intervention group has undergone self-training using the video material without any facilitation while the control group received lecture and hands-on training with facilitators. Participants' performance was assessed using a validated Objective Structured Clinical Examination checklist for landmark identification and interpretation of images generated. Learning preference and confidence level were also assessed. A total of 33 HO were enrolled in this study. Marks obtained in image acquisition by the intervention and control were 25.3 (SD = 5.3) and 25.6 (SD = 2.3) > 0.05, respectively. While in image interpretation, the mean score for the intervention and control group was 10.3 (SD 1.7) and 9.8 (SD = 1.7) > 0.05, respectively. Overall performance assessment, showed the intervention group obtained 35.6 (SD = 5.9) compared to control 35.3 (SD = 3.4), > 0.05. Based on pre-specified determinant these scores difference falls within the 10% of non-inferiority margin. The absolute difference between both groups was 0.3 (CI = -3.75 to 3.21, = 0.871), which proves non-inferiority but not superiority. In terms of learning preference and confidence to perform FAST, most of the participants preferred the control group approach. The SIV method is as effective as the CTM for learning FAST among the house officers and served as an alternative to classroom teaching. However, this technique needs improvement in promoting their confidence and preference. Perhaps incorporating a feedback session after going through the SIV would improve the confidence.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8415983PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2021.698774DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

house officers
16
control group
16
classroom teaching
8
university hospital
8
ctm learning
8
fast house
8
group
8
hands-on training
8
intervention group
8
learning preference
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!