3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Impact of the Covid-19 pandemic and ensuing online teaching on pre-clinical medical education

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Major disruptions and changes in education have occurred worldwide as a result of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic and the ensuing shift from in-person to online education. However, the effect of such changes on medical education, its magnitude, and the learning domains impacted by such rapid changes have not been adequately addressed, particularly with regard to objective assessment approaches.

          Methods

          Second-year medical students enrolled in our Medical English Course between 2019 and 2021 were recruited from Hokkaido University, Japan ( N = 321) to participate in this study. We evaluated the potential impact of teaching styles on the academic performance of students before (2019; face-to-face) and during (2020; online; 2021; in-person and online) the pandemic. We examined the potential effect of three teaching styles––in-person (2019), online (2020), and a combination of these (2021) on the academic performance of medical students using: (i) subjective assessment of self-reported general English skills, including reading, writing, listening, and speaking; and (ii) objective assessment of medical terminology scores, evidence-based medicine (EBM) skills, and final written exam scores.

          Results

          In-person education significantly improved listening and speaking skills in 2019 ( p < 0.001). This trend was observed for writing skills in an online course in 2020 ( p = 0.001). With the combined teaching method, students reported significant improvements in all four English skills. In our objective assessments, medical terminology improved significantly post-test versus pre-test for all three teaching styles, and we found that the online course did not adversely affect the gain in medical terminology knowledge during the course. Additionally, we did not find any significant differences across the three applied teaching styles regarding EBM skill levels. It is noteworthy that the students taking online courses had a significantly higher final exam score (mean ± SD; 82.8 ± 8.2) than in in-person (78.6 ± 8.8) and combined (79.7 ± 12.1) teaching styles.

          Conclusions

          In our study, the online/combined courses showed better academic outcomes compared to the face-to-face course in the preclinical clerkship. Although the current results need to be replicated on a larger scale, online/combined courses can continue and evolve in the post-pandemic education of medical students. Medical schools and institutions should consider incorporating such courses, especially combined courses, into their curricula in the future to improve the effectiveness, accessibility, and flexibility of medical education.

          Supplementary Information

          The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12909-023-04967-x.

          Related collections

          Most cited references18

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Barriers and solutions to online learning in medical education – an integrative review

          Background The aim of this study is to review the literature on known barriers and solutions that face educators when developing and implementing online learning programs for medical students and postgraduate trainees. Methods An integrative review was conducted over a three-month period by an inter-institutional research team. The search included ScienceDirect, Scopus, BioMedical, PubMed, Medline (EBSCO & Ovid), ERIC, LISA, EBSCO, Google Scholar, ProQuest A&I, ProQuest UK & Ireland, UL Institutional Repository (IR), UCDIR and the All Aboard Report. Search terms included online learning, medical educators, development, barriers, solutions and digital literacy. The search was carried out by two reviewers. Titles and abstracts were screened independently and reviewed with inclusion/exclusion criteria. A consensus was drawn on which articles were included. Data appraisal was performed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) Qualitative Research Checklist and NHMRC Appraisal Evidence Matrix. Data extraction was completed using the Cochrane Data Extraction Form and a modified extraction tool. Results Of the 3101 abstracts identified from the search, ten full-text papers met the inclusion criteria. Data extraction was completed on seven papers of high methodological quality and on three lower quality papers. Findings suggest that the key barriers which affect the development and implementation of online learning in medical education include time constraints, poor technical skills, inadequate infrastructure, absence of institutional strategies and support and negative attitudes of all involved. Solutions to these include improved educator skills, incentives and reward for the time involved with development and delivery of online content, improved institutional strategies and support and positive attitude amongst all those involved in the development and delivery of online content. Conclusion This review has identified barriers and solutions amongst medical educators to the implementation of online learning in medical education. Results can be used to inform institutional and educator practice in the development of further online learning. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12909-018-1240-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Does online learning work better than offline learning in undergraduate medical education? A systematic review and meta-analysis

            ABSTRACT With the increasing use of technology in education, online learning has become a common teaching method. How effective online learning is for undergraduate medical education remains unknown. This article’s aim is to evaluate whether online learning when compared to offline learning can improve learning outcomes of undergraduate medical students. Five databases and four key journals of medical education were searched using 10 terms and their Boolean combinations during 2000–2017. The extracted articles on undergraduates’ knowledge and skill outcomes were synthesized using a random effects model for the meta-analysis.16 out of 3,700 published articles were identified. The meta-analyses affirmed a statistically significant difference between online and offline learning for knowledge and skill outcomes based on post-test scores (SMD = 0.81; 95% CI: 0.43, 1.20; p < 0.0001; n = 15). The only comparison result based on retention test scores was also statistically significant (SMD = 4.64; 95% CI: 3.19, 6.09; p < 0.00001). The meta-analyses discovered no significant difference when using pre- and post-test score gains (SMD = 3.03; 95% CI: −0.13, 4.13; p = 0.07; n = 3). There is no evidence that offline learning works better. And compared to offline learning, online learning has advantages to enhance undergraduates’ knowledge and skills, therefore, can be considered as a potential method in undergraduate medical teaching.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Internet-based learning in the health professions: a meta-analysis.

              The increasing use of Internet-based learning in health professions education may be informed by a timely, comprehensive synthesis of evidence of effectiveness. To summarize the effect of Internet-based instruction for health professions learners compared with no intervention and with non-Internet interventions. Systematic search of MEDLINE, Scopus, CINAHL, EMBASE, ERIC, TimeLit, Web of Science, Dissertation Abstracts, and the University of Toronto Research and Development Resource Base from 1990 through 2007. Studies in any language quantifying the association of Internet-based instruction and educational outcomes for practicing and student physicians, nurses, pharmacists, dentists, and other health care professionals compared with a no-intervention or non-Internet control group or a preintervention assessment. Two reviewers independently evaluated study quality and abstracted information including characteristics of learners, learning setting, and intervention (including level of interactivity, practice exercises, online discussion, and duration). There were 201 eligible studies. Heterogeneity in results across studies was large (I(2) > or = 79%) in all analyses. Effect sizes were pooled using a random effects model. The pooled effect size in comparison to no intervention favored Internet-based interventions and was 1.00 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90-1.10; P < .001; n = 126 studies) for knowledge outcomes, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.49-1.20; P < .001; n = 16) for skills, and 0.82 (95% CI, 0.63-1.02; P < .001; n = 32) for learner behaviors and patient effects. Compared with non-Internet formats, the pooled effect sizes (positive numbers favoring Internet) were 0.10 (95% CI, -0.12 to 0.32; P = .37; n = 43) for satisfaction, 0.12 (95% CI, 0.003 to 0.24; P = .045; n = 63) for knowledge, 0.09 (95% CI, -0.26 to 0.44; P = .61; n = 12) for skills, and 0.51 (95% CI, -0.24 to 1.25; P = .18; n = 6) for behaviors or patient effects. No important treatment-subgroup interactions were identified. Internet-based learning is associated with large positive effects compared with no intervention. In contrast, effects compared with non-Internet instructional methods are heterogeneous and generally small, suggesting effectiveness similar to traditional methods. Future research should directly compare different Internet-based interventions.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                mtakahashi@pop.med.hokudai.ac.jp
                Journal
                BMC Med Educ
                BMC Med Educ
                BMC Medical Education
                BioMed Central (London )
                1472-6920
                17 January 2024
                17 January 2024
                2024
                : 24
                : 66
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Center for Medical Education and International Relations, Faculty of Medicine, Graduate School of Medicine, Hokkaido University, ( https://ror.org/02e16g702) Sapporo, Japan
                [2 ]Clinical Training Center, Hokkaido University Hospital, ( https://ror.org/0419drx70) Sapporo, Japan
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1145-8917
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9267-2864
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5810-1224
                Article
                4967
                10.1186/s12909-023-04967-x
                10792807
                38233801
                c552681e-dfa2-4fb3-b06f-29cb65553230
                © The Author(s) 2024

                Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                : 10 July 2023
                : 12 December 2023
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2024

                Education
                covid-19 pandemic,medical education,medical students,preclinical clerkship,online and in-person teaching,subjective and objective assessments,academic performance

                Comments

                Comment on this article