↓ Skip to main content

A Comparison of Simulation-Based Education Versus Lecture-Based Instruction for Toxicology Training in Emergency Medicine Residents

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Medical Toxicology, May 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 Mendeley
Title
A Comparison of Simulation-Based Education Versus Lecture-Based Instruction for Toxicology Training in Emergency Medicine Residents
Published in
Journal of Medical Toxicology, May 2014
DOI 10.1007/s13181-014-0401-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joseph K. Maddry, Shawn M. Varney, Daniel Sessions, Kennon Heard, Robert E. Thaxton, Victoria J. Ganem, Lee A. Zarzabal, Vikhyat S. Bebarta

Abstract

Simulation-based teaching (SIM) is a common method for medical education. SIM exposes residents to uncommon scenarios that require critical, timely actions. SIM may be a valuable training method for critically ill poisoned patients whose diagnosis and treatment depend on key clinical findings. Our objective was to compare medical simulation (SIM) to traditional lecture-based instruction (LEC) for training emergency medicine (EM) residents in the acute management of critically ill poisoned patients. EM residents completed two pre-intervention questionnaires: (1) a 24-item multiple-choice test of four toxicological emergencies and (2) a questionnaire using a five-point Likert scale to rate the residents' comfort level in diagnosing and treating patients with specific toxicological emergencies. After completing the pre-intervention questionnaires, residents were randomized to SIM or LEC instruction. Two toxicologists and three EM physicians presented four toxicology topics to both groups in four 20-min sessions. One group was in the simulation center, and the other in a lecture hall. Each group then repeated the multiple-choice test and questionnaire immediately after instruction and again at 3 months after training. Answers were not discussed. The primary outcome was comparison of immediate mean post-intervention test scores and final scores 3 months later between SIM and LEC groups. Test score outcomes between groups were compared at each time point (pre-test, post-instruction, 3-month follow-up) using Wilcoxon rank sum test. Data were summarized by descriptive statistics. Continuous variables were characterized by means (SD) and tested using t tests or Wilcoxon rank sum. Categorical variables were summarized by frequencies (%) and compared between training groups with chi-square or Fisher's exact test. Thirty-two EM residents completed pre- and post-intervention tests and comfort questionnaires on the study day. Both groups had higher post-intervention mean test scores (p < 0.001), but the LEC group showed a greater improvement compared to the SIM group (5.6 [2.3] points vs. 3.6 [2.4], p = 0.02). At the 3-month follow-up, 24 (75 %) tests and questionnaires were completed. There was no improvement in 3-month mean test scores in either group compared to immediate post-test scores. The SIM group had higher final mean test scores than the LEC group (16.6 [3.1] vs. 13.3 [2.2], p = 0.009). SIM and LEC groups reported similar diagnosis and treatment comfort level scores at baseline and improved equally after instruction. At 3 months, there was no difference between groups in comfort level scores for diagnosis or treatment. Lecture-based teaching was more effective than simulation-based instruction immediately after intervention. At 3 months, the SIM group showed greater retention than the LEC group. Resident comfort levels for diagnosis and treatment were similar regardless of the type of education.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Unknown 66 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 13%
Student > Bachelor 9 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 7%
Student > Postgraduate 5 7%
Other 18 27%
Unknown 14 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 40%
Social Sciences 7 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 7%
Psychology 2 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 1%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 19 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 August 2014.
All research outputs
#15,301,754
of 22,757,090 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Toxicology
#552
of 667 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#132,707
of 226,345 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Toxicology
#9
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,757,090 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 667 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.3. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 226,345 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.