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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tomesko, Jennifer, Touger-Decker, Riva, Dreker, Margaret, Zelig, Rena, Parrott, James Scott
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