Cargando…
The Effectiveness of Computer-Assisted Instruction to Teach Physical Examination to Students and Trainees in the Health Sciences Professions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE: To explore knowledge and skill acquisition outcomes related to learning physical examination (PE) through computer-assisted instruction (CAI) compared with a face-to-face (F2F) approach. METHOD: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis published between January 2001 and December 201...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
SAGE Publications
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5736283/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29349338 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2382120517720428 |
_version_ | 1783287350838689792 |
---|---|
author | Tomesko, Jennifer Touger-Decker, Riva Dreker, Margaret Zelig, Rena Parrott, James Scott |
author_facet | Tomesko, Jennifer Touger-Decker, Riva Dreker, Margaret Zelig, Rena Parrott, James Scott |
author_sort | Tomesko, Jennifer |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: To explore knowledge and skill acquisition outcomes related to learning physical examination (PE) through computer-assisted instruction (CAI) compared with a face-to-face (F2F) approach. METHOD: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis published between January 2001 and December 2016 was conducted. Databases searched included Medline, Cochrane, CINAHL, ERIC, Ebsco, Scopus, and Web of Science. Studies were synthesized by study design, intervention, and outcomes. Statistical analyses included DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model. RESULTS: In total, 7 studies were included in the review, and 5 in the meta-analysis. There were no statistically significant differences for knowledge (mean difference [MD] = 5.39, 95% confidence interval [CI]: −2.05 to 12.84) or skill acquisition (MD = 0.35, 95% CI: −5.30 to 6.01). CONCLUSIONS: The evidence does not suggest a strong consistent preference for either CAI or F2F instruction to teach students/trainees PE. Further research is needed to identify conditions which examine knowledge and skill acquisition outcomes that favor one mode of instruction over the other. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5736283 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | SAGE Publications |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-57362832018-01-18 The Effectiveness of Computer-Assisted Instruction to Teach Physical Examination to Students and Trainees in the Health Sciences Professions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Tomesko, Jennifer Touger-Decker, Riva Dreker, Margaret Zelig, Rena Parrott, James Scott J Med Educ Curric Dev Original Research PURPOSE: To explore knowledge and skill acquisition outcomes related to learning physical examination (PE) through computer-assisted instruction (CAI) compared with a face-to-face (F2F) approach. METHOD: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis published between January 2001 and December 2016 was conducted. Databases searched included Medline, Cochrane, CINAHL, ERIC, Ebsco, Scopus, and Web of Science. Studies were synthesized by study design, intervention, and outcomes. Statistical analyses included DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model. RESULTS: In total, 7 studies were included in the review, and 5 in the meta-analysis. There were no statistically significant differences for knowledge (mean difference [MD] = 5.39, 95% confidence interval [CI]: −2.05 to 12.84) or skill acquisition (MD = 0.35, 95% CI: −5.30 to 6.01). CONCLUSIONS: The evidence does not suggest a strong consistent preference for either CAI or F2F instruction to teach students/trainees PE. Further research is needed to identify conditions which examine knowledge and skill acquisition outcomes that favor one mode of instruction over the other. SAGE Publications 2017-07-14 /pmc/articles/PMC5736283/ /pubmed/29349338 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2382120517720428 Text en © The Author(s) 2017 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page(https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). |
spellingShingle | Original Research Tomesko, Jennifer Touger-Decker, Riva Dreker, Margaret Zelig, Rena Parrott, James Scott The Effectiveness of Computer-Assisted Instruction to Teach Physical Examination to Students and Trainees in the Health Sciences Professions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis |
title | The Effectiveness of Computer-Assisted Instruction to Teach Physical Examination to Students and Trainees in the Health Sciences Professions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis |
title_full | The Effectiveness of Computer-Assisted Instruction to Teach Physical Examination to Students and Trainees in the Health Sciences Professions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis |
title_fullStr | The Effectiveness of Computer-Assisted Instruction to Teach Physical Examination to Students and Trainees in the Health Sciences Professions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | The Effectiveness of Computer-Assisted Instruction to Teach Physical Examination to Students and Trainees in the Health Sciences Professions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis |
title_short | The Effectiveness of Computer-Assisted Instruction to Teach Physical Examination to Students and Trainees in the Health Sciences Professions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis |
title_sort | effectiveness of computer-assisted instruction to teach physical examination to students and trainees in the health sciences professions: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
topic | Original Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5736283/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29349338 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2382120517720428 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT tomeskojennifer theeffectivenessofcomputerassistedinstructiontoteachphysicalexaminationtostudentsandtraineesinthehealthsciencesprofessionsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT tougerdeckerriva theeffectivenessofcomputerassistedinstructiontoteachphysicalexaminationtostudentsandtraineesinthehealthsciencesprofessionsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT drekermargaret theeffectivenessofcomputerassistedinstructiontoteachphysicalexaminationtostudentsandtraineesinthehealthsciencesprofessionsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT zeligrena theeffectivenessofcomputerassistedinstructiontoteachphysicalexaminationtostudentsandtraineesinthehealthsciencesprofessionsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT parrottjamesscott theeffectivenessofcomputerassistedinstructiontoteachphysicalexaminationtostudentsandtraineesinthehealthsciencesprofessionsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT tomeskojennifer effectivenessofcomputerassistedinstructiontoteachphysicalexaminationtostudentsandtraineesinthehealthsciencesprofessionsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT tougerdeckerriva effectivenessofcomputerassistedinstructiontoteachphysicalexaminationtostudentsandtraineesinthehealthsciencesprofessionsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT drekermargaret effectivenessofcomputerassistedinstructiontoteachphysicalexaminationtostudentsandtraineesinthehealthsciencesprofessionsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT zeligrena effectivenessofcomputerassistedinstructiontoteachphysicalexaminationtostudentsandtraineesinthehealthsciencesprofessionsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT parrottjamesscott effectivenessofcomputerassistedinstructiontoteachphysicalexaminationtostudentsandtraineesinthehealthsciencesprofessionsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis |