ArticleThe Journal of chiropractic education2022
Effects of a sudden change in curriculum delivery mode in postgraduate clinical studies, following the COVID-19 pandemic.
Article in The Journal of chiropractic education, 2022. 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.
- Online vs in-person delivery of preclinical coursework: A retrospective cohort study evaluating National Board of Chiropractic Examiners performance.The Journal of chiropractic education · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo examine the effect of a change in the delivery mode of clinical neurology, a postgraduate subject at Macquarie University, following COVID-19 restrictions on face-to-face teaching.
methodsParticipants were master of chiropractic students (n = 212) who completed 2019 or 2020 clinical neurology. The main outcome measure was a comparison of objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) marks between the 2019 and 2020 cohorts. The 2019 group underwent traditional, face-to-face learning, whereas the 2020 group were taught and examined remotely in session 1 but returned to campus in session 2. Descriptive analyses, between-group differences, and generalized linear models were performed.
resultsMeans for OSCE marks between the 2 groups were higher in the 2020 group in session 1 (p < .001). However, when students returned to campus in session 2, the means were significantly lower in the 2020 group compared with the 2019 group (p < .001). Generalized linear regression indicated that the web-based mode of delivery in 2020 might have had a significant impact on OSCE marks compared with their 2019 counterparts (p < .001).
conclusionThe sudden change in the mode of delivery from face-to-face to remote learning and the change in testing methods in response to the global COVID-19 pandemic had a significant effect on clinical neurology student performance scores. The OSCE marks in the 2020 cohort for session 1 were higher than those in 2019. However, when the 2020 cohort returned to on-campus tutorials in session 2, their marks were lower than those of their 2019 counterparts.
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.