ArticleThe Journal of chiropractic education2024
Comparison of online to face-to-face instruction for anatomy review in a third-year clinical course.
Article in The Journal of chiropractic education, 2024. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis project compared student learning and satisfaction of an anatomy review delivered by a face-to-face lecture (F2FL) and an online learning module (OLM) for third-year doctor of chiropractic students.
methodsThis cohort study compared student learning and satisfaction of a pediatric spinal anatomy review delivered via F2FL (cohort 1, n = 23) and OLM (cohort 2, n = 18) in 2 successive 2019 (pre-COVID) course offerings. Previously validated pre- and post-tests were given. Students completed a survey assessing delivery, comfort with online learning and online learning technology, and preference of F2FL vs OLM of review material. Pre- and post-test results were assessed using repeated-measures analysis of variance.
resultsTesting results showed an improvement with both groups (F2FL 53.7%, p < .001 vs OLM 51.8%, p < .001), with no significant difference between the F2FL and OLM groups (p = .53; p = .82). The survey showed: 83.3% of OLM students felt the online method was effective, and 88.9% of the OLM students would prefer online reviews or have no preference between online or face-to-face; meanwhile, 80% of the F2FL group thought the lecture engaging/effective, whereas 60% of the F2FL group would have preferred to have the material presented online.
conclusionThe OLM was found to be as effective as the F2FL for the content assessed. The majority of students would prefer the online method for future anatomy review content presented in the course. This strategy could be applied to provide review materials in other clinical courses, allowing material to be developed and given by content experts while freeing valuable in-class time.
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.