ArticleBMC medical education2024
The impact of UTeach observation protocol-based multiple-source feedback on improving the quality of online teaching in medical education.
Article in BMC medical education, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe ability to teach, as a core competency, has always suffered from a lack of systematic cultivation.
objectiveThis study aimed to explore the difference in teaching quality before and after the application of the UTOP (UTeach observation protocol)-based multiple source feedback (MSF) formative assessment of the quality improvement of medical education classrooms.
methodsThis study retrospectively analyzed the teaching quality of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine and the Third Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University. The participants were divided into control and UTOP groups according to the actual training they took in the teaching. All the participants, including teachers and trainee teachers, who were under conventional teaching methods were in the control group, and those who were under MSF training were in the UTOP group. UTOP and New Teacher Assessment Scores (NTAS) were evaluated, and the differences between the two courses were analyzed. The UTOP group was divided into a teacher group and a practice group according to differences in the participants' teaching experience. The UTOP-MSF evaluation data were extracted and analyzed, and the differences in teaching quality were compared before and after the implementation of MSF training.
resultsThe study was conducted for 10 months, with 43 participants completing 120 web-based lectures. In the control group, 32 participants were included, including 22 teachers with 27 courses and 10 trainee teachers who had no teaching experience with 13 courses. Eleven participants in the UTOP group received 9 rounds of MSF feedback training and completed 80 online lectures, including 3 teachers with 19 courses and 8 trainee teachers with 61 courses. A total of 324 evaluations from researchers were extracted and analyzed, including 162 UTOP scores and 162 NTAS; 575 MSF assessments were analyzed, including 438 from the teachers and 137 from the trainee teachers. The participants in the UTOP group had significantly higher UTOP and NTAS scores than did those in the control group did (59.84 ± 14.64 vs. 40.74 ± 6.80, p = 0.000; 73.00 (62.25, 80.00) vs. 53.00 (50.75, 57.00), p = 0.000, respectively). Among the participants who performed UTOP training, the UTOP-MSF scores increased for both teachers and trainee teachers (51.50 (37.75, 68.25) vs. 73.00 (68.00, 76.50), p = 0.022; 41.00 (36.00, 51.75) vs. 68.00 (59.75, 77.00), p = 0.000, respectively). The mean UTOP MSF scores were strongly positively correlated with the mean NTAS (r = 0.640, p = 0.000).
conclusionUTOP-based MSF training significantly improved teaching quality in medical education, and it can be an effective tool for evaluating teaching quality.
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.