ArticleCureus2024
Enhancing Medical Education through the "Distribute, Discuss, and Develop" Method: A Comparative Study of Small-Group Discussions.
Article in Cureus, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Small-group discussions (SGDs) are pivotal in medical education, facilitating the development of critical thinking, communication skills, and teamwork. However, traditional SGDs face challenges such as scalability and maintaining student engagement. This study aims to evaluate the "Distribute, Discuss, and Develop" (3D) method for enhancing learning outcomes in medical education. Methods A single-blinded interventional study was conducted with 125 first-year Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery students, who were divided into intervention and control groups through random assignment. The intervention group employed the 3D method across two thematic units: hematology and muscle nerve physiology. The study assessed learning outcomes using pre- and posttests, class-average normalized gain ("g"), and feedback questionnaires to capture student perceptions of interaction, communication enhancement, and session summarization. Results The intervention group showed significantly improved learning outcomes in both thematic units, with larger effect sizes (hematology: 1.55; muscle nerve physiology: 1.4) compared to the control group. The normalized gain "g" indicated a medium effectiveness level for the intervention group in both themes, suggesting enhanced learning. Feedback questionnaires revealed higher satisfaction levels within the intervention group regarding interaction, communication skills, and session summarization. Conclusions The 3D method addresses the challenges faced by traditional SGDs, providing a scalable and engaging approach to medical education. By fostering more effective student-centered learning, the method enhances the comprehension of complex physiological concepts and improves communication skills. The 3D method significantly improves learning outcomes, interaction, and communication skills in medical education. This innovative approach to SGDs offers a promising strategy for enhancing the educational experience in medical schools, supporting the development of more articulate and professionally competent medical graduates.
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.