ObjectivesTo explore how formative OSCEs influence student performance and perception when undertaking summative OSCEs.MethodsWe introduced formative OSCEs for second-year medical students at a large London medical school. Examination data from both formative and subsequent summative OSCEs were analysed to determine the effect on summative OSCE performance. We gathered student perceptions using an anonymous online survey tool. The data was investigated using a standard scale of 1 to 5 and qualitative analysis of free text.ResultsOverall, 46.6% and 85.0% of students passed the formative and summative OSCEs respectively. Formative OSCEs did not improve overall pass rates in summative OSCEs. Inclusion of an individual formative station was associated with improved performance in that station in summative OSCEs, with one exception. Formative OSCEs had a positive predictive value of 92.5% for passing the summative OSCE but limited negative predictive value. Students who passed fewer than two out of three formative OSCE stations were significantly more likely to fail the summative OSCE (78.2% vs 89.7%, p <0.001). Students felt formative OSCEs were good exam preparation and suggested logistical changes.Conclusion Formative OSCEs were associated with improved performance in subsequent summative OSCEs only for identical stations. They did not improve overall pass rates in summative OSCEs, and did not predict performance well. Students viewed the formative OSCE as a positive and useful activity. However, to maximise its benefit as a tool for learning, students need better communication about the role and purpose of formative OSCEs.

No abstract

Our results suggest that certain alterations to the test environment may improve the sensitivity of this clinical examination.

ObjectivesThere is a lack of evidence regarding the effectiveness of graphic health warning labels (GHWL) in different individuals, including patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Investigating knowledge and attitudes may allow better implementation of future public health policies. We hypothesised that differences in the impact of GHWL exist between non-smokers, smokers and patients with COPD, with decreased efficacy in those groups who are longer and more frequently exposed to them.Participants and setting163 participants (54% male, aged 21–80) including 60 non-smokers, 53 smokers and 50 patients with COPD (Gold stage II–IV), attending London respiratory outpatient clinics, participated in case-controlled surveys (50 items).Outcome measuresTen different GHWL were shown and demographics, smoking history, plans to quit, smoking-risk awareness, emotional response, processing and impact of GHWL on behaviour were recorded. Patients were further asked to prioritise the hypothetical treatment or prevention of five specific smoking-related diseases.ResultsSmokers, in particular those with COPD, were less susceptible to GHWL than non-smokers; 53.4% of all participants expressed fear when looking at GHWL, non-smokers (71.9%) more so than smokers (39.8%, p<0.001). COPD participants were less aware of the consequences than non-COPD participants (p<0.001), including an awareness of lung cancer (p=0.001). Lung cancer (95%), oral cancer (90.2%), heart disease (84.7%) and stroke (71.2%) were correctly associated with smoking, whereas blindness was least associated (23.9%). However, blindness was prioritised over oral cancer, stroke and in patients with COPD also over heart disease when participants were asked about hypothetical treatment or prevention.ConclusionsGHWL are most effective in non-smokers and a desensitisation effect was observed in smokers and patients with COPD. As a consequence, a tailored and concerted public health approach to use such messages is required and ‘blindness’ deserves to be mentioned in this context because of an unexpectedly high-deterring impact.