ArticleInternational journal of general medicine2020
Do Checklist-Induced Behavioral Changes Improve Self-Confidence in Fundoscopic Examination? A Mixed-Methods Study.
Article in International journal of general medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Flexible e-learning video approach to improve fundus examination skills for medical students: a mixed-methods study.BMC medical education · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeFundoscopic exams are conducted during outpatient consultations to assess intracranial disease and complications from chronic diseases. Low level of confidence in these skills which physicians have is one of the causes that implementation frequency is low. Research has not yet identified specific measures through which the healthcare system may increase the implementation of fundoscopic exams nor a qualitative process that enables physicians to gain confidence in their fundoscopic exam skills. We introduced a checklist and conducted a mixed-methods study.
methodsThis study is a before-and-after study, within an embedded-experimental mixed-methods design. We sampled 15 physicians in the department of general medicine at a university hospital assigned to initial consultation. We introduced a checklist to verify whether the fundoscopic exam was implemented. Measures are implementation ratio of the fundoscopic exam to the total number of indication cases, and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) values for the confidence in procedure are measured before and after the intervention. We obtained qualitative data from interviews and used the Modified Grounded Theory Approach.
resultsWe observed significant increases in the implementation ratio (19.2% (29/151 cases) vs 64.8% (105/162 cases), p<0.001) and in the VAS value for the confidence (1.89 mm vs 4.68 mm (p<0.001)). Analysis of the interviews revealed the following. To increase the implementation, it is necessary to reduce the <Lack of confidence> and <Forgetting>, which is prevented by the checklist. The <Lack of successful experiences in detecting abnormalities> leads to a <Lack of confidence>. Repeated executions result in <Successful experiences and confidence building>.
conclusionThe intervention increased the implementation ratio, thereby increasing successful experiences and confidence among physicians. The growth of confidence boosted motivations to implement fundoscopic exams.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.