↓ Skip to main content

Teaching the pediatric ear exam and diagnosis of Acute Otitis Media: a teaching and assessment model in three groups

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Teaching the pediatric ear exam and diagnosis of Acute Otitis Media: a teaching and assessment model in three groups
Published in
BMC Medical Education, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12909-017-0988-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Caroline R. Paul, Craig L. Gjerde, Gwen McIntosh, Lori S. Weber

Abstract

The serious consequences of inaccurate diagnosis of acute otitis media have led to a call for greater education to develop proficient pediatric otoscopy skills. Despite the clinical and educational needs, peer-reviewed standardized curricula with validated assessment instruments remain limited. This study evaluated a pediatric otoscopy curriculum incorporated into the Pediatric medical student clerkship with use of outcome measures that included assessment of skills with real patients. The objective was to determine whether students who received the intervention would demonstrate significant gains in pediatric otoscopy skills when compared with students with only routine immersion learning exposure. During their Pediatric clerkship, an intervention group (IG) of 100 medical students received routine instruction and a curriculum intervention. A non-intervention group (NIG) of 30 students received only routine instruction. Outcome measures included written tests and assessment of skills with real patients. A retention group (RG) consisted of 79 students in the IG who completed a written test at the end of medical school. Paired t-tests were used to compare differences in pre-intervention, post-intervention, and retention scores for the IG, NIG, and RG, while analysis of covariance tests were used to compare differences in scores between the IG and NIG. Pre-intervention scores were similar for the IG and NIG for the written test (mean/SD of 12.9/2.9 for IG and 12.9/1.8 for NIG, p = 0.78) and skills checklist (mean/SD of 11.1/4.4 for IG and 10.9/4.0 for NIG, p = 0.88). The IG had significantly higher post-intervention scores than the NIG for the written test (mean/SD of 22.6/1.7 for IG and 13.9/2.5 for NIG, p < 0.001) and skills checklist (mean/SD of 19.2/3.4 for IG and 11.0/3.8 for NIG, p < 0.001). The IG also had significantly higher gain in scores than the NIG for the written test (mean/SD +9.6/2.8 for IG and +1.0/2.3 for NIG, p < 0.001) and skills checklist (mean/SD of +8.1/4.8 for IG and +0.1/4.5 for NIG, p < 0.001). For the RG, there was a significant decrease (p < 0.001) from the post-intervention scores to retention scores (mean/SD of -7.4/2.7) but a significant increase (p < 0.001) from the pre-intervention score to retention score (mean + 2.6/3.3). Medical students who received a formal curriculum intervention demonstrated significant gains in pediatric otoscopy skills when compared with students with only routine immersion learning exposure. However, learning gains diminished over time, emphasizing the need for continued practice opportunities to reinforce students' skills. Our study provides a formal curriculum to meet identified educational gaps in the important topic of pediatric otoscopy and offers a model for teaching of other clinical skills using rigorous outcome measures including assessment of skills in real patients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 15%
Student > Postgraduate 5 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Professor 3 8%
Student > Bachelor 2 5%
Other 9 23%
Unknown 12 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 28%
Social Sciences 4 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 8%
Computer Science 3 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 5%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 12 30%
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 29 August 2017.
All research outputs
#18,569,430
of 22,999,744 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#2,779
of 3,363 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#242,237
of 315,948 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#52
of 61 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,999,744 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,363 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% 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 315,948 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 61 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.