Title |
High-fidelity simulation versus case-based discussion for teaching medical students in Brazil about pediatric emergencies
|
---|---|
Published in |
Clinics, June 2015
|
DOI | 10.6061/clinics/2015(06)02 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
TB Couto, SC Farhat, GL Geis, O Olsen, C Schvartsman |
Abstract |
To compare high-fidelity simulation with case-based discussion for teaching medical students about pediatric emergencies, as assessed by a knowledge post-test, a knowledge retention test and a survey of satisfaction with the method. This was a non-randomized controlled study using a crossover design for the methods, as well as multiple-choice questionnaire tests and a satisfaction survey. Final-year medical students were allocated into two groups: group 1 participated in an anaphylaxis simulation and a discussion of a supraventricular tachycardia case, and conversely, group 2 participated in a discussion of an anaphylaxis case and a supraventricular tachycardia simulation. Students were tested on each theme at the end of their rotation (post-test) and 4-6 months later (retention test). Most students (108, or 66.3%) completed all of the tests. The mean scores for simulation versus case-based discussion were respectively 43.6% versus 46.6% for the anaphylaxis pre-test (p=0.42), 63.5% versus 67.8% for the post-test (p=0.13) and 61.5% versus 65.5% for the retention test (p=0.19). Additionally, the mean scores were respectively 33.9% versus 31.6% for the supraventricular tachycardia pre-test (p=0.44), 42.5% versus 47.7% for the post-test (p=0.09) and 41.5% versus 39.5% for the retention test (p=0.47). For both themes, there was improvement between the pre-test and the post-test (p<0.05), and no significant difference was observed between the post-test and the retention test (p>0.05). Moreover, the satisfaction survey revealed a preference for simulation (p<0.001). As a single intervention, simulation is not significantly different from case-based discussion in terms of acquisition and retention of knowledge but is superior in terms of student satisfaction. |
Twitter Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 71 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 12 | 17% |
Researcher | 10 | 14% |
Student > Bachelor | 8 | 11% |
Other | 6 | 8% |
Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 8% |
Other | 18 | 25% |
Unknown | 11 | 15% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 31 | 44% |
Psychology | 6 | 8% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 8% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 4% |
Arts and Humanities | 3 | 4% |
Other | 8 | 11% |
Unknown | 14 | 20% |