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
Objective: This study evaluated the efficacy of virtual classroom training (VCT) in comparison to face-to-face training (FFT) and non-interactive computer-based learning (CBL) for basic surgical skills training.
Design: This was a parallel-group, non-inferiority, prospective randomised controlled trial with three intervention groups conducted in 2021. There were three intervention groups with allocation ratio 1:1:1. Outcome adjudicators were blinded to intervention assignment. Interventions consisted of 90-minute training sessions. VCT was delivered via the BARCO weConnect platform, FFT was provided in-person by expert instructors and CBL was carried out by participants independently. The primary outcome was post-intervention Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills score, adjudicated by two experts and adjusted for baseline proficiency. The assessed task was to place three interrupted sutures with hand-tied knots.
Setting: This multicentre study recruited from five medical schools in London.
Participants: Inclusion criteria were medical student status and access to a personal computer and smartphone. One hundred fifty-nine eligible individuals applied online. Seventy-two participants were randomly selected and stratified by subjective and objective suturing experience prior to permuted block randomization.
Results: Twenty-four participants were allocated to each intervention, all were analysed per-protocol. The sample was 65.3% female with mean age 21.3 (SD 2.1). VCT was non-inferior to FFT (adjusted difference 0.44, 95% CI: -0.54 to 1.75, delta 0.675), VCT was superior to CBL (adjusted difference 1.69, 95% CI: 0.41-2.96) and FFT was superior to CBL (adjusted difference 1.25, 95% CI: 0.20-2.29). The costs per-attendee associated with VCT, FFT and CBL were £22.15, £39.69 and £16.33 respectively. Instructor hours used per student for VCT and FFT were 0.25 and 0.75, respectively.
Conclusions: VCT provides greater accessibility and resource efficiency compared to FFT, with similar educational benefit. VCT has the potential to improve global availability and accessibility of surgical skills training.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2021.11.004 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!