Using Comprehensive Video-Module Instruction as an Alternative Approach for Teaching IUD Insertion.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Family medicine clinicians and residents have increasing educational and work demands that have made it difficult to provide and access training on specific procedures such as IUD insertion. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the use of video-module instruction could provide residents with the necessary knowledge and skills to perform an IUD insertion correctly when compared with the traditional form of instruction, which is a lecture-demonstration session provided by an academic gynecologist. METHODS: Thirty-nine family medicine residents participated in the study during the induction period at the beginning of their residency program in July 2012 at the University of Calgary. A randomized, two group pretest/posttest experimental research design was used to compare the procedural knowledge and skills performance (posttest only) of residents trained using an alternative instructional intervention (video-module teaching) with the traditional lecture-demonstration approach to teaching IUD insertion. RESULTS: Both teaching methods were effective in providing procedural knowledge instruction, and the paired-samples t tests results were almost identical: t (37)=1.35. On the other hand, performance scores were significantly higher in the video-module group: t (37)=2.37, 95% CI (0.61, 8.00), with a mean difference in performance of 4.31. There were no significant differences in residents' satisfaction scores, and there was no correlation between the different scores and sex or age or between performance and level of satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: This video-module instruction is an effective method to provide comprehensive IUD insertion training, and the psychomotor skills gain (performance component) was significantly higher than the traditional method of instruction.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".