MENUCLOSE

 

Connect with us

Author: Brian S McGowan, PhD

MANUSCRIPT: Computer game-based and traditional learning method: a comparison regarding students’ knowledge retention

Results
Students that received the game-based method performed better in the pos-test assessment only when considering the Anatomy questions section. Students that received the traditional lecture performed better in both post-test and long-term post-test when considering the Anatomy and Physiology questions.
Conclusions
The game-based learning method is comparable to the traditional learning method in general and in short-term gains, while the traditional lecture still seems to be more effective to improve students’ short and long-term knowledge retention.

 

http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1472-6920-13-30.pdf

RESOURCE: Professors Say Technology Helps in Logistics, Not Learning

…the report suggests, technology is more often used by professors for managerial reasons, such as to help with the demands of growing class sizes. While Mr. Johnson said most college administrators are not yet requiring professors to use instructional technologies, the pressure of teaching more than 300 students at once, for example, leads faculty members to adopt technology in ways unrelated to improving learning.

“You’re being told that you have to shoulder a larger and larger share of the burden, and here’s some technology that will help you do it,” said one anthropologist quoted in the report.

Mr. Johnson said the findings show a gap between how universities market their use of technology—often framing technology as more sophisticated than prior approaches to instruction—and how the faculty actually uses it. He called this a “ceremonial myth.”

via Professors Say Technology Helps in Logistics, Not Learning – Wired Campus – The Chronicle of Higher Education.

RESOURCE: ‘Social reading’ the next phase of e-book revolution

According to Bob Stein, a digital pioneer, the future of books is “social reading.”

Digital booksellers, like Amazon and Indigo, have harnessed social media from the start. They and other sellers encourage their customers to comment on books in company-controlled chat spaces.

But these digital walled gardens are way too limited for Stein, who heads up the Institute for the Future of the Book and was the founder of the Criterion Collection, the celebrated video-distribution company where he dreamed up the idea of adding commentary tracks to movies on DVD.

Based in New York, Stein is working on a new application called Socialbook, which is like those Amazon and Indigo chatrooms — on steroids.

via ‘Social reading’ the next phase of e-book revolution – Canada – CBC News.

Medical Education: How do you take notes?

Over the past year I have interviewed well more than 100 clinicians and educators to better understand how they learn, and how they employ what I have come to call the four natural learning actions. These structured conversations have been enlightening – and if you are interested in participating in the process, just let me know. Over the next few months I will be blogging about these finding, submitting a few manuscripts for publication, and extending the research. In the meantime I thought I would begin to share a few of the more interesting ‘learning architectures’ that I discovered.

Case #1: “I’ve used the same notebook for my two big annual meetings since around 1994…”

One clinician told the story of the one notebook that he has used for nearly 20 years. For 350 days a year this notebook sits in plain sight in his office bookcase. Twice each year he takes this book – including every note that he has jotted down from the two major medical meetings he attends each year – and packs it in his brief case as he prepares to travel to the upcoming meeting. Two meetings times 19 years equals 38 separate learning experiences. As he boards the plane to the next meeting he will use the time to flip through the pages of past meeting notes. He mentioned that this is always a time of both shame and learning – shame in that he had forgotten most of what he wrote down at the last meeting and learning because this exercise prepared him to be a better learner at the next meeting.

Over the course of the meeting he would take notes from the sessions he attended, from the hallway conversations he had, and even from the chance meetings he might experience on the exhibit hall floor. Each night he would try to revisit what he captured that day. And over the three or four days of the meeting he would take anywhere from 4-10 pages of notes. On the flight home he would flip back through his notes and even flip (once again) through the notes of prior meetings so that he could identify any actionable items – these became his “to do list”…though he readily admitted that he rarely acted on these items. Once back in his office the book would be replaced on the bookshelf.

As he described it, “Simply looking at the spine of the book a few times each month served in some small way as a trigger to think about the meeting, and think about the notes I took…I just never figured out a better system to ensure I took action on what I knew was important…”

Case #2: “I use the back of my business cards to jot down anything (and everything) I think is important from my annual meetings…”

One educator suggested that he too was struggling with his note taking and reminder system – he went so far as to ask me not to judge him on the system that he had used for the past decade.

While packing for a major medical meeting he would bring up to 50 business cards. Though some of these cards would be shared with folks he met at the meeting, the primary purpose of this stack of cards was for note taking. With each conversation or learning moment that he accumulated over three or four days at the meeting he would also accumulate a set of cards with notes. Over the course of the day each business card with a note on the back would go into his front left chest pocket. Each night these cards would become ‘flash cards’ allowing him to review what he had learned that day before being stacked neatly on the hotel room night stand. Before the return flight home he would collect the week’s worth of cards so he could continue to flip through these cards and would even begin to organize and prioritize the cards before putting a colored rubber-band around the deck. Upon returning to the office he would try to find time to review the cards once more, but more often than not the banded stack was immediately deposited in the bottom right drawer of his desk.

As he described it, “I know what is in that desk drawer – stacks and stacks of banded business cards. Each stack represents a major meeting I attended. And at least once a week I bang my shin on that drawer! The black and blue marks on my shin serve as a reminder of just how bad my note taking system really is!”

These are just two of the the stories I have been told over the past year – there are dozens just as eccentric, just as frustrating, and just as painful. To be clear, I would never judge a clinician or educator for the jerry-rigged system they have tried to engineer for themselves. The reality is so little effort has been devoted to building better structure for note taking and reminders, that we are each left largely to our own devices…and each tend to do what we have always done!

Over the coming weeks as I share more stories about note taking, reminder systems, search models, and social learning skills I hope you will see that these systems are rarely ever refined or evolved. Yet it is these very systems that support the four natural learning actions which are requisite in each and every medical education program and model we employ.

If you have similar stories to share, please do. And, perhaps together we can help learners and educators alike realize that a well-structured learning architecture is critical to driving change in our lifelong learning models.

All the best,

Brian

MANUSCRIPT: User experiences of evidence-based online resources for health professionals: user testing of The Cochrane Library.

BACKGROUND:
Evidence-based decision making relies on easy access to trustworthy research results. The Cochrane Library is a key source of evidence about the effect of interventions and aims to “promote the accessibility of systematic reviews to anyone wanting to make a decision about health care”. We explored how health professionals found, used and experienced The Library, looking at facets of user experience including findability, usability, usefulness, credibility, desirability and value.
METHODS:
We carried out 32 one-hour usability tests on participants from Norway and the UK. Participants both browsed freely and attempted to perform individually tailored tasks while “thinking aloud”. Sessions were recorded and viewed in real time by researchers. Transcriptions and videos were reviewed by one researcher and one designer. Findings reported here reflect issues receiving a high degree of saturation and that we judge to be critical to the user experience of evidence-based web sites, based on principles for usability heuristics, web guidelines and evidence-based practice.
RESULTS:
Participants had much difficulty locating both the site and its contents. Non-native English speakers were at an extra disadvantage when retrieving relevant documents despite high levels of English-language skills. Many participants displayed feelings of ineptitude, alienation and frustration. Some made serious mistakes in correctly distinguishing between different information types, for instance reviews, review protocols, and individual studies. Although most expressed a high regard for the site’s credibility, some later displayed a mistrust of the independence of the information. Others were overconfident, thinking everything on The Cochrane Library site shared the same level of quality approval.
CONCLUSION:
Paradoxically, The Cochrane Library, established to support easy access to research evidence, has its own problems of accessibility. Health professionals’ experiences of this and other evidence-based online resources can be improved by applying existing principles for web usability, prioritizing the development of simple search functionality, emitting “researcher” jargon, consistent marking of site ownership, and clear signposting of different document types and different content quality.

via User experiences of evidence-based … [BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2008] – PubMed – NCBI.

ABSTRACT: Which literature retrieval method is most effective for GPs?

BACKGROUND:
Evidence-based medicine requires new skills of physicians, including literature searching.
OBJECTIVE:
To determine which literature retrieving method is most effective for GPs: the printed Index Medicus; Medline through Grateful Med; or Medline on CD-ROM.
METHODS:
The design was a randomized comparative study. In a continuing medical education course, three groups of health care professionals (87 GPs and 16 other health care professionals) used one of the literature retrieval methods to retrieve citations on four search topics related to general practice. For the analysis in pairs, we used the search results of the 75 participants who completed all four assignments. As outcome measures, we used precision, recall and an overall search quality score; we also had a post-course questionnaire on personal characteristics, experience with computers, handling medical literature and satisfaction with course instruction and search results.
RESULTS:
The recall and overall search quality scores in the Index Medicus groups (n = 32) were higher (P = <0.001) than those in the CD-ROM groups (n = 31). In addition, the search quality scores in the Grateful Med groups (n = 12) were higher (P < 0.003) than those in the CD-ROM groups. There were no differences in precision.
CONCLUSION:
In the period 1994-1997, the printed Index Medicus was the most effective literature retrieval method for GPs. For inexperienced GPs, there is a need for training in electronic literature retrieval methods.

via Which literature retrieval method is most effectiv… [Fam Pract. 2000] – PubMed – NCBI.

ABSTRACT: Searching multiple databases for systematic reviews: added value or diminishing returns?

OBJECTIVE:
To explore whether searching specialised bibliographic databases identified additional relevant papers to those located by a Medline search for a systematic review of exercise therapy.
METHOD:
Searches were performed in Medline, two further generalised medical databases (Embase, Cochrane Library) and four specialised databases (CancerLit, Cinahl, PsychInfo, SportDiscus) to identify controlled trials of exercise interventions for cancer patients.
RESULTS:
A total of 749 different publications were located through the search, of which 18 met inclusion criteria. Fifteen (83%) of these were identified through Medline and three (17%) from three individual specialised databases. A further seven studies meeting inclusion criteria were located through reference lists and contact with experts.
CONCLUSION:
In this example, searching Medline and additional specialised databases along with checking reference lists and contacting experts was the most effective means of ensuring that all relevant papers were included in the review. Searching Medline alone for systematic reviews of exercise or other unconventional therapies is likely to be inadequate.

via Searching multiple databases for systema… [Complement Ther Med. 2004] – PubMed – NCBI.

ABSTRACT: A systematic review of the effectiveness of critical appraisal skills training for clinicians.

Abstract
The aim of this paper is to undertake a descriptive systematic review of the effectiveness of critical appraisal skills training for clinicians. Of the 10 controlled studies which examined this issue and were found to meet the eligibility criteria of this review, all used a study population of either medical students or doctors in training. The studies used a variety of different intervention ‘dosages’ and reported a range of outcomes. These included participants’ knowledge of epidemiology/biostatistics, their attitudes towards medical literature, their ability to appraise medical literature, and medical literature reading behaviour. An overall improvement in assessed outcomes of 68% was reported after critical appraisal skills training, particularly in knowledge relating to epidemiology and biostatistics. This review appears to provide some evidence of the benefit of teaching critical appraisal skills to clinicians, in terms of both knowledge of methodological/statistical issues in clinical research and attitudes to medical literature. However, these findings should be considered with caution as the methodological quality of studies was generally poor, with only one study employing a randomized controlled design. There is a need for educators within the field of evidence-based health to consider the implications of this review.

via A systematic review of the effectiveness of critica… [Med Educ. 2000] – PubMed – NCBI.

MANUSCRIPT: Developing search strategies for clinical practice guidelines in SUMSearch and Google Scholar and assessing their retrieval performance.

BACKGROUND:
Information overload, increasing time constraints, and inappropriate search strategies complicate the detection of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). The aim of this study was to provide clinicians with recommendations for search strategies to efficiently identify relevant CPGs in SUMSearch and Google Scholar.
METHODS:
We compared the retrieval efficiency (retrieval performance) of search strategies to identify CPGs in SUMSearch and Google Scholar. For this purpose, a two-term GLAD (GuideLine And Disease) strategy was developed, combining a defined CPG term with a specific disease term (MeSH term). We used three different CPG terms and nine MeSH terms for nine selected diseases to identify the most efficient GLAD strategy for each search engine. The retrievals for the nine diseases were pooled. To compare GLAD strategies, we used a manual review of all retrievals as a reference standard. The CPGs detected had to fulfil predefined criteria, e.g., the inclusion of therapeutic recommendations. Retrieval performance was evaluated by calculating so-called diagnostic parameters (sensitivity, specificity, and “Number Needed to Read” [NNR]) for search strategies.
RESULTS:
The search yielded a total of 2830 retrievals; 987 (34.9%) in Google Scholar and 1843 (65.1%) in SUMSearch. Altogether, we found 119 unique and relevant guidelines for nine diseases (reference standard). Overall, the GLAD strategies showed a better retrieval performance in SUMSearch than in Google Scholar. The performance pattern between search engines was similar: search strategies including the term “guideline” yielded the highest sensitivity (SUMSearch: 81.5%; Google Scholar: 31.9%), and search strategies including the term “practice guideline” yielded the highest specificity (SUMSearch: 89.5%; Google Scholar: 95.7%), and the lowest NNR (SUMSearch: 7.0; Google Scholar: 9.3).
CONCLUSION:
SUMSearch is a useful tool to swiftly gain an overview of available CPGs. Its retrieval performance is superior to that of Google Scholar, where a search is more time consuming, as substantially more retrievals have to be reviewed to detect one relevant CPG. In both search engines, the CPG term “guideline” should be used to obtain a comprehensive overview of CPGs, and the term “practice guideline” should be used if a less time consuming approach for the detection of CPGs is desired.

via Developing search strategies for clinic… [BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007] – PubMed – NCBI.

ABSTRACT: Sources of evidence for systematic reviews of interventions in diabetes.

AIMS:
To analyse the effect on systematic reviews in diabetes interventions of including only trials that are indexed in medline, and to assess the impact of adding trials from other databases and the grey literature.
METHODS:
All systematic reviews of diabetes interventions which included a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, and were published since 1996, were selected. The impact on the meta-analysis of including only those trials indexed in medline, and the effect of then adding trials from other sources, was assessed. Where possible this was measured quantitatively, by redoing the meta-analysis, otherwise a qualitative estimate was made.
RESULTS:
Forty-four systematic reviews met our inclusion criteria. There were 120 articles reporting trial data which were not indexed in medline. These came from 52% of the reviews. In 34% of the reviews, basing a meta-analysis on a search of only medline would miss trials that could affect the result. Sources of non-medline data which had the biggest effect on the meta-analyses were journal articles from central and embase (mainly in Diabetes, Nutrition and Metabolism) and unpublished data (mainly from industry). The exceptions were journal articles on herbal medicine, mostly indexed in Chinese language databases.
CONCLUSIONS:
A search of only the medline database is insufficient for systematic reviews of diabetes, because in about 34% of reviews the missed trials could affect the results of the meta-analysis. It is recommended that central (on the Cochrane Library) also be searched. Scanning meeting abstracts, and seeking unpublished data are also recommended if the intervention has only recently been introduced.

via Sources of evidence for systematic reviews of int… [Diabet Med. 2005] – PubMed – NCBI.