How can we teach medical students to choose wisely? A randomised controlled cross-over study of video- versus text-based case scenarios

Sascha Ludwig, Nikolai Schuelper, Jamie Brown, Sven Anders, Tobias Raupach, Sascha Ludwig, Nikolai Schuelper, Jamie Brown, Sven Anders, Tobias Raupach

Abstract

Background: The Choosing Wisely campaign highlights the importance of clinical reasoning abilities for competent and reflective physicians. The principles of this campaign should be addressed in undergraduate medical education. Recent research suggests that answering questions on important steps in patient management promotes knowledge retention. It is less clear whether increasing the authenticity of educational material by the inclusion of videos further enhances learning outcome.

Methods: In a prospective randomised controlled cross-over study, we assessed whether repeated video-based testing is more effective than repeated text-based testing in training students to choose appropriate diagnostic tests, arrive at correct diagnoses and identify advisable therapies. Following an entry exam, fourth-year undergraduate medical students attended 10 weekly computer-based seminars during which they studied patient case histories. Each case contained five key feature questions (items) on the diagnosis and treatment of the presented patient. Students were randomly allocated to read text cases (control condition) or watch videos (intervention), and assignment to either text or video was switched between groups every week. Using a within-subjects design, student performance on video-based and text-based items was assessed 13 weeks (exit exam) and 9 months (retention test) after the first day of term. The primary outcome was the within-subject difference in performance on video-based and text-based items in the exit exam.

Results: Of 125 eligible students, 93 provided data for all three exams (response rate 74.4%). Percent scores were significantly higher for video-based than for text-based items in the exit exam (76.2 ± 19.4% vs. 72.4 ± 19.1%, p = 0.026) but not the retention test (69.2 ± 20.2% vs. 66.4 ± 20.3%, p = 0.108). An additional Bayesian analysis of this retention test suggested that video-based training is marginally more effective than text-based training in the long term (Bayes factor 2.36). Regardless of presentation format, student responses revealed a high prevalence of erroneous beliefs that, if applied to the clinical context, could place patients at risk.

Conclusion: Repeated video-based key feature testing produces superior short-term learning outcome compared to text-based testing. Given the high prevalence of misconceptions, efforts to improve clinical reasoning training in medical education are warranted. The Choosing Wisely campaign lends itself to being part of this process.

Keywords: Choosing wisely; Clinical reasoning; Medical education; Test-enhanced learning; Video.

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the local Ethics Committee (application number 22/4/15), and all participants provided written consent.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow of participants through the study. Orange boxes, video cases; blue boxes, text cases. Contamination occurred when students were erroneously exposed to the wrong presentation format (by reporting to the computer room assigned to the other group) at least once
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Trajectories of student performance in video-based and text-based items, respectively. The first presentation (‘1st occurrence’) of a particular item in an e-seminar occurred between week 3 and week 9; the second item presentation occurred between week 5 and week 11 (‘2nd occurrence’). In order to increase legibility, data collected during first and second occurrences, respectively, were collapsed into two data collection points although data were actually collected over a period of 6 weeks for each occurrence

References

    1. Croskerry P. A universal model of diagnostic reasoning. Acad Med. 2009;84(8):1022–1028. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181ace703.
    1. Cassel CK, Guest JA. Choosing wisely: helping physicians and patients make smart decisions about their care. JAMA. 2012;307(17):1801–1802. doi: 10.1001/jama.2012.476.
    1. Brody H. Medicine’s ethical responsibility for health care reform--the top five list. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(4):283–285. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp0911423.
    1. Jung N, Lehmann C, Fatkenheuer G. The “choosing wisely” initiative in infectious diseases. Infection. 2015;45(3):263–268.
    1. Hicks LK, Bering H, Carson KR, Haynes AE, Kleinerman J, Kukreti V, Ma A, Mueller BU, O’Brien SH, Panepinto JA, et al. Five hematologic tests and treatments to question. Blood. 2014;124(24):3524–3528. doi: 10.1182/blood-2014-09-599399.
    1. Langer-Gould AM, Anderson WE, Armstrong MJ, Cohen AB, Eccher MA, Iverson DJ, Potrebic SB, Becker A, Larson R, Gedan A, et al. The American Academy of Neurology’s top five choosing wisely recommendations. Neurology. 2013;81(11):1004–1011. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e31828aab14.
    1. Kassirer JP. Teaching clinical reasoning: case-based and coached. Acad Med. 2010;85(7):1118–1124. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181d5dd0d.
    1. Dequeker J, Jaspaert R. Teaching problem-solving and clinical reasoning: 20 years experience with video-supported small-group learning. Med Educ. 1998;32(4):384–389. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2923.1998.00219.x.
    1. Spencer J. Learning and teaching in the clinical environment. BMJ. 2003;326(7389):591–594. doi: 10.1136/bmj.326.7389.591.
    1. Cook DA, Triola MM. Virtual patients: a critical literature review and proposed next steps. Med Educ. 2009;43(4):303–311. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03286.x.
    1. Wahlgren CF, Edelbring S, Fors U, Hindbeck H, Stahle M. Evaluation of an interactive case simulation system in dermatology and venereology for medical students. BMC Med Educ. 2006;6:40. doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-6-40.
    1. Berman NB, Durning SJ, Fischer MR, Huwendiek S, Triola MM. The role for virtual patients in the future of medical education. Acad Med. 2016;91(9):1217–1222. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000001146.
    1. Karpicke JD, Roediger HL., 3rd The critical importance of retrieval for learning. Science. 2008;319(5865):966–968. doi: 10.1126/science.1152408.
    1. Roediger HL, Karpicke JD. The power of testing memory - basic research and implications for educational practice. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2006;1(3):181–210. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00012.x.
    1. McConnell MM, St-Onge C, Young ME. The benefits of testing for learning on later performance. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2015;20(2):305–320. doi: 10.1007/s10459-014-9529-1.
    1. Larsen DP, Butler AC, Roediger HL., 3rd Comparative effects of test-enhanced learning and self-explanation on long-term retention. Med Educ. 2013;47(7):674–682. doi: 10.1111/medu.12141.
    1. Kromann CB, Jensen ML, Ringsted C. Test-enhanced learning may be a gender-related phenomenon explained by changes in cortisol level. Med Educ. 2011;45(2):192–199. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2010.03790.x.
    1. Hrynchak P, Takahashi SG, Nayer M. Key-feature questions for assessment of clinical reasoning: a literature review. Med Educ. 2014;48(9):870–883. doi: 10.1111/medu.12509.
    1. Larsen DP, Butler AC, Roediger HL., 3rd Test-enhanced learning in medical education. Med Educ. 2008;42(10):959–966. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03124.x.
    1. Raupach T, Andresen JC, Meyer K, Strobel L, Koziolek M, Jung W, Brown J, Anders S. Test-enhanced learning of clinical reasoning: a crossover randomised trial. Med Educ. 2016;50(7):711–720. doi: 10.1111/medu.13069.
    1. Godden DR, Baddeley A. Context-dependent memory in two natural environments: on land and underwater. Br J Psychol. 1975;66(3):325–331. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1975.tb01468.x.
    1. Paivio A. Imagery and Verbal Processes. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston; 1971.
    1. Mayer RE, Sims VK. For whom is a picture worth a thousand words? Extensions of a dual-coding theory of multimedia learning. J Educ Psychol. 1994;86(3):389–401. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.86.3.389.
    1. Huwendiek S, Reichert F, Bosse HM, de Leng BA, van der Vleuten CP, Haag M, Hoffmann GF, Tonshoff B. Design principles for virtual patients: a focus group study among students. Med Educ. 2009;43(6):580–588. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03369.x.
    1. Dienes Z. Understanding Psychology as a Science: An Introduction to Scientific and Statistical Inference. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan; 2008.
    1. Baghdady M, Carnahan H, Lam EW, Woods NN. Test-enhanced learning and its effect on comprehension and diagnostic accuracy. Med Educ. 2014;48(2):181–188. doi: 10.1111/medu.12302.
    1. Dobson JL, Linderholm T. Self-testing promotes superior retention of anatomy and physiology information. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2015;20(1):149–161. doi: 10.1007/s10459-014-9514-8.
    1. Logan JM, Thompson AJ, Marshak DW. Testing to enhance retention in human anatomy. Anat Sci Educ. 2011;4(5):243–248. doi: 10.1002/ase.250.
    1. Larsen DP, Butler AC, Roediger HL., 3rd Repeated testing improves long-term retention relative to repeated study: a randomised controlled trial. Med Educ. 2009;43(12):1174–1181. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03518.x.
    1. Chan LK, Patil NG, Chen JY, Lam JC, Lau CS, Ip MS. Advantages of video trigger in problem-based learning. Med Teach. 2010;32(9):760–765. doi: 10.3109/01421591003686260.
    1. de Leng B, Dolmans D, van de Wiel M, Muijtjens A, van der Vleuten C. How video cases should be used as authentic stimuli in problem-based medical education. Med Educ. 2007;41(2):181–188. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02671.x.
    1. Basu Roy R, McMahon GT. Video-based cases disrupt deep critical thinking in problem-based learning. Med Educ. 2012;46(4):426–435. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2011.04197.x.
    1. La Rochelle JS, Durning SJ, Pangaro LN, Artino AR, van der Vleuten CP, Schuwirth L. Authenticity of instruction and student performance: a prospective randomised trial. Med Educ. 2011;45(8):807–817. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2011.03994.x.
    1. Woodham LA, Ellaway RH, Round J, Vaughan S, Poulton T, Zary N. Medical student and tutor perceptions of video versus text in an interactive online virtual patient for problem-based learning: a pilot study. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(6):e151. doi: 10.2196/jmir.3922.
    1. Sweller J, van Merrienboer J, Paas F. Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educ Psychol Rev. 1998;10:251–296. doi: 10.1023/A:1022193728205.
    1. Larsen DP, Butler AC, Lawson AL, Roediger HL., 3rd The importance of seeing the patient: test-enhanced learning with standardized patients and written tests improves clinical application of knowledge. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2013;18(3):409–425. doi: 10.1007/s10459-012-9379-7.

Source: PubMed

3
Se inscrever