ArticleMedical education online2021
Interdisciplinary groups perform better than intradisciplinary groups in online group discussion activities.
Article in Medical education online, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Facilitators and barriers to online group work in higher education within health sciences - a scoping review.Medical education online · 2024Article
- Investigating the Effects of Intraprofessional Learning in Nursing Education: Protocol for a Longitudinal Study.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Online classes have been provided for health-care pre-licensure learners during the novel coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the utility of online group work in interprofessional education. A total of 209 students were assigned to 50 groups (18 medical student groups, 13 nursing student groups, and 19 mixed medical/nursing student groups). Learners performed group work during the orientation for the course, which was hosted using an online video conferencing system. The learners first performed the activity individually (10 min) and then engaged in a group discussion to reach consensus on their answers (30 min). We calculated the scores before and after the group discussion and shared the results with the students. Scores were improved after the group discussion (mean ± SEM, 23.7 ± 0.9) compared with before (37.3 ± 1.3) (P < .0001). Lower scores after the group discussion, which indicated the effect of the group discussion on making better decisions, were observed most in the mixed medical/nursing student groups, followed by the nursing student and medical student groups. We noted only 3 groups in which the group discussion showed a negative effect on decision-making: all 3 of these groups were mixed (3 of 19 groups; 16%). These data demonstrated the power of group discussion for solving tasks when the participants' professional fields were mixed. However, the small size of the interdisciplinary groups might have resulted in less effective discussion, which might be due in part to psychological barriers arising from professional differences. Online group work is effective for facilitating discussion and building consensus about decisions in interprofessional education for medical and nursing students. Potential psychological barriers may exist in about 16% of mixed group students at the start, which should be kept in mind by instructors.
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.