Observational studyBMC medical education2025
Evaluation of the impact of an online introductory paediatric physical examination skills course on students' OSCE performance.
Observational study in BMC medical education, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVideos demonstrating clinical skills are considered powerful educational tools. However, there is limited evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive multimedia skills courses on knowledge and skills acquisition. We used cognitive load theory to develop an online course to introduce medical students to core paediatric physical examination concepts and skills, within a resource-constrained learning environment with high student-to-clinical teacher ratios. This study evaluated the impact and acceptance of the online course.
methodsWe used an observational quasi-experimental analysis for the impact evaluation. The main outcome was students' marks for the paediatrics station in the final paper-based observed structured clinical examination (OSCE). We measured the frequency of viewing core course content and used the median number of views to divide 351 fourth-year students into low and high users. Propensity score matching analysis was used to adjust for potential selection biases of course use. Low- and high-users were matched on gender, age, type of course entry, previous academic performance, and OSCE group before calculating the average treatment effect (ATE). The matched ATE was also calculated for different sub-groups of the class. A voluntary, online, cross-sectional survey about the course was administered post-OSCE. Closed-ended survey responses were analysed using descriptive statistics, and open-ended questions using content analysis.
resultsIncreased course usage significantly increased performance in the paediatrics component of the OSCE: high course users scored an average of 7.0% points [95%CI: 3.8-10.2] higher. The impact of the course was greatest for the middle 60% of the class, in terms of previous academic performance, with a matched ATE of 8.2% [95%CI: 4.3-12.2]. The survey response rate was 74.9%. The respondents expressed positive perceptions about the overall value of the course, including the clearly presented content that fostered an appreciation for paediatrics and prepared them for hospital rotations and the OSCE.
conclusionsThis study demonstrates that an online paediatric physical examination skills course can significantly improve students' examination performance, particularly for those in the middle academic performance range. The findings support the integration of multimedia clinical skills courses in medical curricula, especially in resource-constrained settings.
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.