Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38366801›Full record

ArticleActa obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica2024

The outcomes of team-based learning vs small group interactive learning in the obstetrics and gynecology course for undergraduate students.

Irene Sterpu, Lotta Herling, Jonas Nordquist, Anna Möller, Helena Kopp Kallner, Hedvig Engberg, Ganesh Acharya

Open access · diamondAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
12.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Irene SterpuDivision of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Department of Clinical Sciences, Intervention and Technology (CLINTEC), Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-3497-7023
Lotta HerlingDivision of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Department of Clinical Sciences, Intervention and Technology (CLINTEC), Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Jonas NordquistDepartment of Medicine (Huddinge), Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Anna MöllerDepartment of Clinical Science and Education, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-4097-6169
Helena Kopp KallnerDepartment of Clinical Sciences Danderyd Hospital, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0001-7184-9165
Hedvig EngbergDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Ganesh AcharyaDivision of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Department of Clinical Sciences, Intervention and Technology (CLINTEC), Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-1997-3107
Karolinska Institutet · SEKarolinska University Hospital · SEDanderyds sjukhus · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionTeam-based learning (TBL) is a well-established active teaching method which has been shown to have pedagogical advantages in some areas such as business education and preclinical disciplines in undergraduate medical education. Increasingly, it has been adapted to clinical disciplines. However, its superiority over conventional learning methods used in clinical years of medical school remains unclear. The aim of this study was to compare TBL with traditional seminars delivered in small group interactive learning (SIL) format in terms of knowledge acquisition and retention, satisfaction and engagement of undergraduate medical students during the 6-week obstetrics and gynecology clerkship. MATERIAL AND

methodsThe study was conducted at Karolinska Institutet, a medical university in Sweden, and had a prospective, crossover design. All fifth-year medical students attending the obstetrics and gynecology clerkship, at four different teaching hospitals in Stockholm (approximately 40 students per site), in the Autumn semester of 2022 were invited to participate. Two seminars (one in obstetrics and one in gynecology) were designed and delivered in two different formats, ie TBL and SIL. The student:teacher ratio was approximately 10:1 in the traditional SIL seminars and 20:1 in the TBL. All TBL seminars were facilitated by a single teacher who had been trained and certified in TBL. Student knowledge acquisition and retention were assessed by final examination scores, and the engagement and satisfaction were assessed by questionnaires. For the TBL seminars, individual and team readiness assurance tests were also performed and evaluated.

resultsOf 148 students participating in the classrooms, 132 answered the questionnaires. No statistically significant differences were observed between TBL and SIL methods with regard to student knowledge acquisition and retention, engagement and satisfaction.

conclusionsWe found no differences in student learning outcomes or satisfaction using TBL or SIL methods. However, as TBL had a double the student to teacher ratio as compared with SIL, in settings where teachers are scarce and suitable rooms are available for TBL sessions, the method may be beneficial in reducing faculty workload without compromising students' learning outcomes.

Indexed as

Education, Medical, UndergraduateGynecologyObstetricsAdultClinical ClerkshipCross-Over StudiesEducational MeasurementFemaleGroup ProcessesHumansMaleProblem-Based LearningProspective StudiesStudents, MedicalSurveys and QuestionnairesSwedenactive learningmedical educationteam‐based learningundergraduate

Identifiers

PMID38366801
PMCPMC11103139
OpenAlexW4391897549

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.