Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33731088›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2021

Structured work-based learning in undergraduate clinical radiology immersion experience.

Ulf Teichgräber, Maja Ingwersen, Florian Bürckenmeyer, Amer Malouhi, Clemens Arndt, Aimée Herzog, Tobias Franiel, Hans-Joachim Mentzel, René Aschenbach

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

9 authors.

Ulf TeichgräberDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, Jena University Hospital, Am Klinikum 1, 07747, Jena, Germany. ulf.teichgraeber@med.uni-jena.de.
Maja IngwersenDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, Jena University Hospital, Am Klinikum 1, 07747, Jena, Germany.
Florian BürckenmeyerDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, Jena University Hospital, Am Klinikum 1, 07747, Jena, Germany.
Amer MalouhiDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, Jena University Hospital, Am Klinikum 1, 07747, Jena, Germany.
Clemens ArndtDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, Jena University Hospital, Am Klinikum 1, 07747, Jena, Germany.
Aimée HerzogDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, Jena University Hospital, Am Klinikum 1, 07747, Jena, Germany.
Tobias FranielDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, Jena University Hospital, Am Klinikum 1, 07747, Jena, Germany.
Hans-Joachim MentzelDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, Jena University Hospital, Am Klinikum 1, 07747, Jena, Germany.
René AschenbachDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, Jena University Hospital, Am Klinikum 1, 07747, Jena, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPractical courses in undergraduate medical training often lack a didactic concept. Active participation and learning success largely depend on chance. This study was initiated to evaluate a novel concept of structured work-based learning (WBL) in the course of students' half-day radiology immersion experience (IE).

methodsThis prospective, single-centre cohort study included 228 third-year students of the 2019 summer semester who underwent the obligatory radiology IE at a university hospital. The course was based on a novel structured WBL concept that applied established didactic concepts including blended learning, the FAIR principles of feedback, activity, individualization, and relevance, and Peyton's four-step approach. Outcomes of equal weight were student and supervisor satisfaction with the clinical radiology IE assessed by paper-based- and online survey, respectively. Secondary outcome was achievement of intended learning outcomes assessed by means of mini clinical evaluation exercises and personal interviews.

resultsSatisfaction with structured WBL was high in 99.0% of students. Students' expectations were exceeded, and they felt taken seriously at the professional level. Dissatisfaction was reasoned with quality of learning videos (0.6%), little support by supervisors (0.5%), or inadequate feedback (0.6%). Supervising resident physicians rated achievement of intended learning outcomes regarding cognitive and psychomotor competences as excellent for all students. Personal interviews revealed achievement of affective competence in some students. Twelve of 16 (75.0%) supervising physicians were satisfied with focussing on intended learning outcomes and student preparation for IE. Two of 15 (13.3%) supervisors were unsatisfied with time spent, and 4 of 16 (25%) with the approach of assessment.

conclusionsThis study demonstrated that both students and supervisors were satisfied with the novel concept of structured WBL within the scope of clinical radiology IE. Achievement of intended learning outcomes was promising.

Indexed as

Education, Medical, UndergraduateRadiologyStudents, MedicalClinical CompetenceCohort StudiesCurriculumHumansImmersionProspective StudiesStudentsDistance education and online learningImmersion learningPeyton’s four-step approachUndergraduate medical educationWorkplace learning

Identifiers

PMID33731088
PMCPMC7972199

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.