↓ Skip to main content

Optimizing Residents’ Performance of Lumbar Puncture: An RCT Comparing the Effect of Preparatory Interventions on Performance and Self-Confidence

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of General Internal Medicine, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 Mendeley
Title
Optimizing Residents’ Performance of Lumbar Puncture: An RCT Comparing the Effect of Preparatory Interventions on Performance and Self-Confidence
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine, November 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11606-017-4207-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mikael Johannes Vuokko Henriksen, Troels Wienecke, Helle Thagesen, Rikke Borre Vita Jacobsen, Yousif Subhi, Ryan Brydges, Charlotte Ringsted, Lars Konge

Abstract

Lumbar puncture is often associated with uncertainty and limited experience on the part of residents; therefore, preparatory interventions can be essential. There is growing interest in the potential benefit of videos over written text. However, little attention has been given to whether the design of the videos impacts on subsequent performance. To investigate the effect of different preparatory interventions on learner performance and self-confidence regarding lumbar puncture (LP). Randomized controlled trial in which participants were randomly assigned to one of three interventions as preparation for performing lumbar puncture: 1) goal- and learner-centered video (GLV) presenting procedure-specific process goals and learner-centered information; 2) traditional video (TV) providing expert-driven content, but no process goals; and 3) written text (WT) with illustrations. Participants were PGY-1 doctors without LP experience. After the preparatory intervention, participants performed an LP in a simulated setting with a standardized patient and an assistant. Two content experts, blinded to participant group allocation, assessed video recordings of the performance using the Lumbar Puncture Assessment Tool (LumPAT) and an overall global rating. Participants rated their self-confidence immediately prior to performing the procedure. The primary outcome was the difference in LumPAT scores among groups. A total of 110 PGY-1 doctors were included. Results demonstrated significant differences in LumPAT mean scores among the three groups: GLV, 42.8; TV, 40.6; WT, 38.1 (p = 0.01). The global rating scores were highest in the GLV group (p = 0.026). Self-confidence scores differed significantly among the three groups (p = 0.003), with the TV group scoring the highest. There were no significant correlations between self-confidence scores and performance scores in any of the groups. A video designed with procedure-specific process goals and learner-centered information resulted in better subsequent LP performance than a traditionally designed video or written text. Participants' self-confidence was not predictive of their actual performance.

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 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 59 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 10%
Student > Master 6 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Other 16 27%
Unknown 13 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 7%
Unspecified 3 5%
Engineering 3 5%
Psychology 2 3%
Other 7 12%
Unknown 15 25%
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 14 February 2018.
All research outputs
#18,756,367
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#6,408
of 7,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#239,224
of 329,471 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#51
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,806 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.8. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 329,471 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.