A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL TO EXAMINE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF 20 MUSCULOSKELETAL “SHORT” CASE SIMULATIONS ON FAMILY MEDICINE RESIDENTS’ DEVELOPMENT OF KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS: A PILOT STUDY
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Musculoskeletal (MSK) complaints comprise up to 30% of primary care visits and training is variable among institutions (1). The COVID pandemic contributed to learners feeling unprepared for practice due to the abrupt cessation of clinical exposure (2). Strategies to optimize learning of MSK conditions to prepare learners for real-world clinical encounters is important (3). A 20 module MSK case simulation educational tool was previously developed and tested to be useful in improving knowledge and skills. The purpose of this study was to determine if Family Medicine residents completing the 20 MSK Short Case Simulations delivered through on-line links would improve their knowledge, skills and satisfaction in learning about how to identify and initially manage patients with various MSK conditions when compared to learners not exposed to the same educational tool. Study Design: Randomized Control Trial. Fourteen post-graduate year one (PGY1) and 12 post-graduate year two (PGY2) family medicine residents were randomized to the CTL (N=13) or EXP (13) groups. Residents attended an orientation session outlining the study protocol and consents for participation were obtained. The CTL group completed an online questionnaire (T1) with the same MCQ questions that are contained within the 20 MSK Short Case Simulations. The CTL group had no exposure to the MSK modules. The EXP Group experienced the intervention of doing the 20 MSK Case Simulations which contained a demographics questionnaire, pre-MCQs (T1); the MSK case module (intervention); post-MCQs and a satisfaction questionnaire. One month after the EXP group completed their MSK modules, both the CTL and EXP group completed a T2 questionnaire with the same 100 MCQs reflecting the same questions in the 20 MSK case simulation modules. A quantitative analysis using paired t-tests comparing the two groups were computed. Satisfaction scores were assessed. Twenty-six residents consented and were randomized for the study (CTL=13; EXP=13). One resident in both the CTL and EXP group withdrew from the study. The EXP group (N=12) completed 218 modules. Additional data was lost due to 2 residents in each group not completing theT1 questionnaires. No significant differences (p=.73) were observed among the two groups thus indicating both CTL and EXP groups to be equal at the start of the study. The EXP group (N=12) completing MSK short case simulations had 2 residents complete some but not all 20 modules. The analysis demonstrated a significant difference in knowledge in the EXP group (p<.04) as demonstrated in the T2 questionnaire. One hundred percent of participants in the EXP group indicated they would recommend 11 of the 20 modules to a colleague for learning. Ninety percent of the participants indicated they would recommend the other 9 MSK modules to a colleague for learning. All EXP group participants were very satisfied with the modules and would do them again. Online interactive MSK case simulations were useful as a learning tool for family medicine residents. Current studies are ongoing to determine patient satisfaction and resident competency in MSK knowledge and skills based on patient experience and faculty observations respectively.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,007 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».