ArticleHealth science reports2024
Evaluation of the implementation of the objective structured clinical examination in health sciences education from a low-income context in Tunisia: A cross-sectional study.
Article in Health science reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) is well-established and designed to evaluate students' clinical competence and practical skills in a standardized and objective manner. While OSCEs are widespread in higher-income countries, their implementation in low-resource settings presents unique challenges that warrant further investigation. Aim: This study aims to evaluate the perception of the health sciences students and their educators regarding deploying OSCEs within the School of Health Sciences and Techniques of Sousse (SHSTS) in Tunisia and their efficacity in healthcare education compared to traditional practical examination methods. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted in June 2022, focusing on final-year Health Sciences students at the SHSTS in Tunisia. The study participants were students and their educators involved in the OSCEs from June 6th to June 11th, 2022. Anonymous paper-based 5-point Likert scale satisfaction surveys were distributed to the students and their educators, with a separate set of questions for each. Spearman, Mann-Whitney Results: The satisfaction scores were high among health sciences educators and above average for students, with means of 3.82 ± 1.29 and 3.15 ± 0.56, respectively. The bivariate and multivariate analyzes indicated a significant difference in the satisfaction between the students' specialities. Further, a significant difference in their assessment scores distribution in the practical examinations and OSCEs was also demonstrated, with better performance in the OSCEs. Conclusion: Our study provides evidence of the relatively high level of satisfaction with the OSCEs and better performance compared to the traditional practical examinations. These findings advocate for the efficacy of OSCEs in low-income countries and the need to sustain them.
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.