ArticlePloS one2022
Where there are challenges, there are opportunities: An undergraduate medical students' teaching concept for mental health in times of COVID-19.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
COVID-19 had a tremendous effect on medical education. Most teaching sessions had to be shifted online, posing additional stress and potential isolation on medical students. However, it also offered the promotion of innovative digital teaching concepts. In this article, an approach to undergraduate mental health training is presented and evaluated. The curriculum was designed according to Kern's six-step approach and consisted of asynchronous online material as well synchronous digital teaching and was accompanied by a plethora of newly developed teaching material (videos, fact sheets, etc.). Content covered the whole spectrum of diseases seen in a service of psychosomatic medicine and psychotherapy (i.e. anxiety, depression, trauma, somatoform and eating disorders, as well as motivational interviewing). Feedback from participants was collected, and exam results (written and practical) were compared to pre-COVID-19 times using t-tests for dependent and independent samples. Students were highly satisfied with the teaching (rating of 1.3 ± 0.6, n = 139 students). There was no significant difference from course evaluations before COVID-19 (1.5 ± 0.5, p > .05). The teaching also received an award in the students' competition "best digital teaching concept in summer term 2020". In the written exams, there was no significant difference between before COVID-19 (2.4 ± 0.45) and during COVID-19 times (1.6 ± 0.39; p > .05). In the practical objective structured clinical examination (OSCE), there was also no significant difference between students' judgement of the difficulty of the station (1.9 ± 0.22 vs 1.9 ± 0.31; p > .05) or how well-prepared they felt for the exam (2.0 ± 0.24 vs 2.0 ± 0.31; p > .05). However, there was a significant difference in terms of grades, with the pre-COVID-19 grades being significantly better (2.7 ± 0.37 vs 2.0 ± 0.44; p < .05), which reflects the difficulty of transferring practical skills training to an online setting. Students particularly valued the possibility of self-directed learning combined with personal guidance by departmental experts, reflecting the importance of wellbeing-centred medical education. The pandemic triggered overnight challenges for teaching mental health that may also offer the opportunity to think about worldwide teaching standards with easily accessible material and courses online. This may offer the opportunity to enthral medical students to become mental health specialists themselves.
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.