Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38711070›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2024

Effectiveness of digital and analog learning methods for learning anatomical structures in physiotherapy education.

Larissa Pagels, Robert-Christopher Eschke, Kerstin Luedtke

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. 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

3 authors.

Larissa PagelsPain and Exercise Research Luebeck, Institution of Health Sciences, University of Luebeck, Luebeck, Deutschland. larissa.pagels@uni-luebeck.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3850-9454
Robert-Christopher EschkePain and Exercise Research Luebeck, Institution of Health Sciences, University of Luebeck, Luebeck, Deutschland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1698-3334
Kerstin LuedtkePain and Exercise Research Luebeck, Institution of Health Sciences, University of Luebeck, Luebeck, Deutschland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7308-5469

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAccording to the German Physiotherapy Education and Qualification Regulations, teaching of anatomical structures is one of the fundamental subjects of physiotherapy education. Besides exhibits and models, anatomy atlases are usually used as teaching and learning tools. These are available in both analog form such as printed books or in digital form as a mobile application. Furthermore, the use of digital teaching and learning tools is steadily increasing within the education of health professionals.

aimTo assess the efficacy of a digital educational tool in contrast to an analog anatomical atlas in acquiring knowledge about anatomical structures. MATERIAL AND

methodThe data collection took place in the context of an anatomy tutorial for students of the bachelor's degree program in physiotherapy. In a cross-over design, the students completed two learning assignments, each, with different learning materials provided, either with an anatomy app on a tablet or with an anatomy atlas as a book. The tests to assess the newly acquired knowledge immediately after the task, consisted of questions about the anatomical structures of the knee as well as the shoulder. In addition, the students' satisfaction with the learning materials provided was surveyed using a questionnaire. The survey assessed their satisfaction, their assessment of learning success, and their affinity to digital learning materials. This was done using a 5-point Likert scale and a free-text field. The data was analyzed descriptively, and group differences were calculated using a t-tests.

resultsThirty students participated. The group comparison showed a significantly better outcome for the group that prepared with the analog anatomy atlas for the questions on the knee than the comparison group that used the anatomy app (t(28) = 2.6; p = 0.007). For the questions concerning the shoulder, there was no significant difference between the digital and analog groups (t(28) = 1.14; p = 0.26). The questionnaire revealed that satisfaction with the analog anatomy atlas was significantly higher than with the anatomy app. A total of 93.34% rated their experience with the analog learning tool at least "somewhat satisfied". In contrast, 72.67% of students partially or fully agreed that they "enjoyed learning with digital learning tools". DISCUSSION: Learning anatomical structures with the Human Anatomy Atlas 2023 + app did not show a clear advantage when compared to an anatomy book in these two cohorts of physiotherapy students. The results of the questionnaire also showed greater satisfaction with the analog anatomy atlas than with the anatomy app, whereas most students stated that they frequently use digital learning tools, including some for anatomical structures. Satisfaction with the learning tool seems to play a central role in their effectiveness. In addition, sufficient time must be provided for users to familiarize themselves with the user interface of digital applications to use them effectively. REGISTRATION: Diese klinische Studie wurde nicht in einem Studienregister registriert.

Indexed as

AnatomyCross-Over StudiesAdultAtlases as TopicComputer-Assisted InstructionEducational MeasurementFemaleGermanyHumansKneeLearningMalePhysical Therapy SpecialtyShoulderSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung AdultAnatomyDigitalHybridLearningPhysiotherapy

Identifiers

PMID38711070
PMCPMC11075193

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.