Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32628115›Full record

Trial reportJournal of medical Internet research2020

Evaluation of Adaptive Feedback in a Smartphone-Based Game on Health Care Providers' Learning Gain: Randomized Controlled Trial.

Timothy Tuti, Niall Winters, Hilary Edgcombe, Naomi Muinga, Conrad Wanyama, Mike English, Chris Paton

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of medical Internet research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Timothy TutiKellogg College, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-7915-3004
Niall WintersKellogg College, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-8597-2914
Hilary EdgcombeNuffield Division of Anaesthetics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-4329-813X
Naomi MuingaKEMRI-Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.ORCID 0000-0002-0749-0255
Conrad WanyamaKEMRI-Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.ORCID 0000-0002-3553-6679
Mike EnglishKEMRI-Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.ORCID 0000-0002-7427-0826
Chris PatonNuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-6952-9621

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 207522
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough smartphone-based emergency care training is more affordable than traditional avenues of training, it is still in its infancy, remains poorly implemented, and its current implementation modes tend to be invariant to the evolving learning needs of the intended users. In resource-limited settings, the use of such platforms coupled with gamified approaches remains largely unexplored, despite the lack of traditional training opportunities, and high mortality rates in these settings.

objectiveThe primary aim of this randomized experiment is to determine the effectiveness of offering adaptive versus standard feedback, on the learning gains of clinicians, through the use of a smartphone-based game that assessed their management of a simulated medical emergency. A secondary aim is to examine the effects of learner characteristics and learning spacing with repeated use of the game on the secondary outcome of individualized normalized learning gain.

methodsThe experiment is aimed at clinicians who provide bedside neonatal care in low-income settings. Data were captured through an Android app installed on the study participants' personal phones. The intervention, which was based on successful attempts at a learning task, included adaptive feedback provided within the app to the experimental arm, whereas the control arm received standardized feedback. The primary end point was completion of the second learning session. Of the 572 participants enrolled between February 2019 and July 2019, 247 (43.2%) reached the primary end point. The primary outcome was standardized relative change in learning gains between the study arms as measured by the Morris G effect size. The secondary outcomes were the participants individualized normalized learning gains.

resultsThe effect of adaptive feedback on care providers' learning gain was found to be g=0.09 (95% CI -0.31 to 0.46; P=.47). In exploratory analysis, using normalized learning gains, when subject-treatment interaction and differential time effect was controlled for, this effect increased significantly to 0.644 (95% CI 0.35 to 0.94; P<.001) with immediate repetition, which is a moderate learning effect, but reduced significantly by 0.28 after a week. The overall learning change from the app use in both arms was large and may have obscured a direct effect of feedback.

conclusionsThere is a considerable learning gain between the first two rounds of learning with both forms of feedback and a small added benefit of adaptive feedback after controlling for learner differences. We suggest that linking the adaptive feedback provided to care providers to how they space their repeat learning session(s) may yield higher learning gains. Future work might explore in more depth the feedback content, in particular whether or not explanatory feedback (why answers were wrong) enhances learning more than reflective feedback (information about what the right answers are).

trial registrationPan African Clinical Trial Registry (PACTR) 201901783811130; https://pactr.samrc.ac.za/TrialDisplay.aspx?TrialID=5836. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/13034.

Indexed as

AdultDouble-Blind MethodFeedbackFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansLearning Health SystemMaleSmartphoneVideo Gamesdeveloping countrieseducationemergency medical servicesfeedbackglobal healthhealth workforcemobile phoneneonatal mortalitysmartphone

Identifiers

PMID32628115
PMCPMC7380991

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.