ArticleBMC medical education2022
The application of the spot the difference teaching method in clinical skills training for residents.
Article in BMC medical education, 2022. 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.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinical skill training (CST) is indispensable for first-year surgical residents. It can usually be carried out through video-based flipped learning (FL) within a web-based learning environment. However, we found that residents lack the process of reflection, blindly imitating results in losing interest and passion for learning in the traditional teaching pattern. The teaching method of "spot the difference" (SDTM), which is based on the fundamentals of the popular game of "spot the difference," is designed to improve students' participation and reflective learning during skill training. This study aimed to evaluate this novel educational model's short-term and long-term effectiveness for surgical residents in China.
methodsFirst-year residents who required a three-month rotation in the head and neck surgery department were recruited to participate in a series of CSTs. They were randomized into SDTM and traditional FL (control) groups. Clinical skill performance was assessed with validated clinical skill scoring criteria. Evaluations were conducted by comparing the scores that contain departmental rotation skill examinations and the first China medical licensing examination (CMLE) performance on practical skills. In addition, two-way subjective evaluations were also implemented as a reference for the training results. Training effects were assessed using t tests, Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon tests, chi-square tests, and Cohen' s effect size (d). The Cohen' s d value was considered to be small (<0.2), medium (0.2-0.8), or large (>0.8).
resultsThe SDTM group was significantly superior to the control group in terms of after-department skill examination (t=2.179, p<0.05, d=0.5), taking medical history (t=2.665, p<0.05, d=0.59), and CMLE performance on practical skill (t=2.103, p<0.05, d=0.47). The SDTM members rated the curriculum more highly than the control on the items relating to interestingness and participation (p < 0.05) with large effect sizes (d >0.8). There were no significant differences between the two groups on clinical competence (t=0.819, p=0.415, d=0.18), the first-time pass rate for CMLE (χ2 =1.663, p=0.197, d=0.29), and short-term operational skills improvement (t=1.747, p=0.084, d=0.39).
conclusionsSDTM may be an effective method for enhancing residents' clinical skills, and the effect is significant both short- and long-term. The improvement effect seemed to be more significant in the peer-involved SDTM than training alone. However, despite positive objective results, SDTM still risks student learning burnout.
trial registrationISRCTN registry, ISRCTN10598469 , 02/04/2022,retrospectively registered.
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.