ArticleInternational journal of emergency medicine2024
Comparing online and onsite simulation modules for improving knowledge and confidence in disaster preparedness among undergraduate medical students.
Article in International journal of emergency medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Enhancing Disaster Preparedness Through Tabletop Disaster Exercises: A Scoping Review of Benefits for Health Workers and Students.Advances in medical education and practice · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDisaster preparedness is one of the critical strategies for effectively managing disasters and has been an area of high focus in the healthcare sector over the past few decades. The current Indian medical undergraduate curriculum does not describe any novel methods for disaster preparedness training. There is a need for a better understanding of novel teaching-learning methods and modes for administering disaster preparedness training among Indian medical students.
objectivesDescribe the undergraduate medical students' baseline knowledge and confidence level of disaster preparedness. Compare undergraduate medical students' knowledge scores and confidence levels on disaster preparedness after online and onsite delivery of the disaster preparedness module.
methodsIn this educational interventional study, 103 medical students were divided into two groups and subjected to an online or onsite session of the validated disaster preparedness module (based on the COVID-19 pandemic), encompassing a simulation-based tabletop exercise. Baseline testing was done for 52 participants in the online group and 51 in the onsite group of the study. Post-intervention, they were assessed with single-response type MCQs for knowledge and Likert scale-based questions for confidence scores. The pretest and posttest scores were collected, and the data were analysed using two-tailed t-tests for paired analysis of within-group (online group or onsite group) and heteroscedastic analysis of between-group datasets.
resultsOne hundred and three participants completed the exercise-52 participants were from the online group, and 51 were from the onsite group. After the intervention, there was a statistically significant increase in knowledge and confidence in both online and onsite groups. There is, however, no significant difference in the 'percentage change' in 'knowledge' or 'confidence' between the groups.
conclusionsOur study indicates that the disaster preparedness module, delivered online and onsite, improves knowledge and confidence among undergraduate medical students. However, there is no superiority between one mode of delivery and the other. We conclude that online training can facilitate disaster preparedness training as a corollary to the prescribed traditional training methods for undergraduate medical students in India.
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.