Trial reportBMC medical education2023
Clinical records after asynchronous and synchronous e-learning courses: a multi-method randomised controlled trial on students' performance and experience.
Trial report in BMC medical education, 2023. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinical Record (CR) writing is a fundamental skill for healthcare professionals, but the best e-learning methods for teaching it remain unstudied. Therefore, we investigated speech therapy students' differences in the quality production of CR at the placement and their experience after following asynchronous or synchronous e-learning courses.
methodsA multi-method randomised controlled trial. Fifty speech therapist students were equally and randomly divided into two groups attending asynchronous or synchronous e-learning classes to learn how to write a CR. The quality of the CR was tested through an ad hoc checklist (score 0-32) and the groups' scores were compared. The assessors and the statistician were blinded to students' group assignment. Students' experience was assessed through semi-structured interviews analysed with a reflexive thematic analysis.
resultsNo score differences between the two groups were found (Cohen's d = 0.1; 95% Confidence Interval [-0.6; 0.7]). Four themes were generated: (1) 'Different Forms of Learning Interaction', as the synchronous group reported a positive experience with being fed back immediately by the lecturer, whereas the asynchronous group reported that pushing back the question time allows for reflecting more on the learning experience; (2) 'Different Ways to Manage the Time', as the synchronous group had to stick to the lecturer's schedule and the asynchronous group felt the possibility to manage its time; (3) 'To Be or Not To Be (Present)?' due to the different experiences of having (or not) the lecturer in front of them; (4) 'Inspiring Relationships With The Peers', where both groups preferred a peer-to-peer discussion instead of contacting the lecturer. DISCUSSION: Asynchronous and synchronous e-learning courses appeared equally effective in teaching CR writing. However, students perceive and experience these methods differently. The choice or blend of these methods should be based on students' needs and preferences, teacher input, as well as organisational requirements rather than solely on students' attended performance.
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.