Blended Learning Versus Face-to-face Learning in Cardiac Physiotherapy Students

A Randomized Trial Comparing Blended Learning Versus Face-to-face Learning in Cardiac Physiotherapy Students

Blended learning (BL) combines both face-to-face learning (FL) and online learning. There is no evidence about the effects of a BL program in cardiac physiotherapy education. This study aimed at comparing the effectiveness of a BL program versus a FL program in Physiotherapy Degree students on knowledge, competencies, satisfaction, perceptions, usability, BL acceptance, attitudes and behaviours. An assessor-blinded randomized trial was performed.

Study Overview

• Status: Completed
• Conditions: Learning; Students
• Intervention / Treatment: Other: Blended-learning group; Other: Face-to-face learning group

Detailed Description

Blended learning (BL) combines both face-to-face learning (FL) and online learning. There is no evidence about the effects of a BL program in cardiac physiotherapy education. This study aimed at comparing the effectiveness of a BL program versus a FL program in Physiotherapy Degree students on knowledge, competencies, satisfaction, perceptions, usability, BL acceptance, attitudes and behaviours. An assessor-blinded randomized trial was performed. A total of 100 students were randomly allocated to a BL group (BLG, n=48), or a FL group (FLG, n=52). The BLG received face-to-face classes plus online re-sources (online syllabus, Moodle, scientific-based videos and websites, activities, glossary, and apps). The FLG received face-to-face classes and hardcopy resources (hardcopy syl-labus, scientific-based information, activities, and glossary). Knowledge, ethical and gen-der competencies, satisfaction, and perceptions were assessed pre- and post-intervention. Usability, BL acceptance, attitudes and behaviours were assessed post-intervention.

• Study Type: Interventional
• Enrollment (Actual): 100
• Phase: Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

Study Locations

• Spain
  • Valencia, Spain, 46010
    • University of Valencia

Participation Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

• Ages Eligible for Study: 18 years and older (Adult, Older Adult)
• Accepts Healthy Volunteers: No
• Genders Eligible for Study: All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

• Being a student of Degree in Physiotherapy at the University of Valencia.
• Willing to participate

Exclusion Criteria:

• Previous cardiac physiotherapy training.

Study Plan

How is the study designed?

Design Details

• Primary Purpose: Other
• Allocation: Randomized
• Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
• Masking: Single

Number of Arms

2

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm	Intervention / Treatment
Experimental: Blended-learning group; The BL program included paced, asynchronous online learning modules and scheduled online activities with strategic face-to-face lectures.	Other: Blended-learning group; The BL program included paced, asynchronous online learning modules and scheduled online activities with strategic face-to-face lectures. Resources: 1) Moodle platform: it was used as a virtual communication platform. 2) Online syllabus: an online specific syllabus about cardiac physiotherapy was developed. 3) Online glossary: an online glossary performed by the teacher was available for the students. 4) Online videos: several videos of international and national scientific societies were provided. 5) Websites: several links to websites of international and national scientific societies such as the European Society of Cardiology, the American Heart Association or the World Heart Federation were used. 6) Online activities: five four-question online activities were created. 7) Apps, using the app Ariadna to prevent from cardiovascular risk and look for defibrillators around; 8) Online tutorship, through an online communication platform (Blackboard Collaborate).
Active Comparator: Face-to-face learning group; Face-to-face classes.	Other: Face-to-face learning group; The FLG included: 1) Face-to-face classes; 2) Hardcopy syllabus; 3) Hardcopy scien-tific societies information; 4) Face-to-face activities: four questions per each theme; 5) Hardcopy glossary; and 6) Face-to-face tutorships. In all cases, the content of the infor-mation provided was the same as the information provided to the BLG, although in a face-to-face design.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
Knowledge acquisition	Multiple-choice test. Score from 0 to 10 .The higher the score, the greater the knowledge.	5 minutes

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
Cross-curricular ethical and gender competencies	Higher Education, Transversal Skills and Gender Questionnaire. From 1 to 42. The higher the score, the more ethical and gender competencies are acquired.	5 minute
Satisfaction with the program	6-item Yang's Satisfaction Questionnaire. From 1 to 24. The higher the score, the greater the satisfaction with the program.	5 minute
Perceptions and evaluation of the program	8-item Kavadella's Perceptions Questionnaire. From 1 to 40 points. The higher the score, the better the perceptions and evaluation of the program.	5 minutes
Usability of the virtual platform	System Usability Scale. The total SUS score (0 to 100) can be interpreted as not acceptable (0-64), acceptable (65 to 84), or excellent (85 to 100)	5 minutes
Blended-learning acceptance	4-item Blended Learning Acceptance Scale. From 1 to 28 points. The higher the score, the greater the acceptance.	5 minutes
Students' attitudes towards e-learning and e-learning behaviour	Questionnaire comprising 3 items (how much Moodle helped you, willingness of using Moodle, interest in e-learning). The higher score, the greater attitudes towards e-learning and e-learning behaviour.	5 minutes

Collaborators and Investigators

• Sponsor: University of Valencia
• Investigators: Principal Investigator: Elena Marqués Sulé, Dra, Univeristy of Valencia

Publications and helpful links

General Publications

• Ng L, Seow KC, MacDonald L, Correia C, Reubenson A, Gardner P, Spence AL, Bunzli S, De Oliveira BIR. eLearning in Physical Therapy: Lessons Learned From Transitioning a Professional Education Program to Full eLearning During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Phys Ther. 2021 Apr 4;101(4):pzab082. doi: 10.1093/ptj/pzab082.

Helpful Links

• Blended Learning: The impact of blackboard formative assessment on the final marks and students' perception of its effectiveness
• Blended learning in health education: three case studies

Study record dates

Study Major Dates

• Study Start (Actual): September 12, 2020
• Primary Completion (Actual): March 30, 2021
• Study Completion (Actual): March 30, 2021

Study Registration Dates

• First Submitted: September 15, 2022
• First Submitted That Met QC Criteria: September 15, 2022
• First Posted (Actual): September 21, 2022

Study Record Updates

• Last Update Posted (Actual): September 22, 2022
• Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria: September 20, 2022
• Last Verified: September 1, 2022

More Information

Terms related to this study

• Other Study ID Numbers: IE1576047

Drug and device information, study documents

• Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product: No
• Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product: No