Multiple strategy peer-taught evidence-based medicine course in a poor resource setting

Abstract

BackgroundTeaching Evidence Based Medicine (EBM) is becoming a priority in the healthcare process. For undergraduates, it has been proved that integrating multiple strategies in teaching EBM yields better results than a single, short-duration strategy. However, there is a lack of evidence on applying EBM educational interventions in developing countries. In this study, we aim to evaluate the effectiveness of a multiple strategy peer-taught online course in improving EBM awareness and skills among medical students in two developing countries, Syria and Egypt.MethodsWe conducted a prospective study with pre- and post- course assessment of 84 medical students in three universities, using the Berlin questionnaire and a set of self-reported questions which studied the students’ EBM knowledge, attitude and competencies. The educational intervention was a peer-taught online course consisting of six sessions (90 min each) presented over six weeks, and integrated with assignments, group discussions, and two workshops.ResultsThe mean score of pre- and post-course Berlin tests was 3.5 (95% CI: 2.94–4.06) and 5.5 (95% CI: 4.74–6.26) respectively, increasing by 2 marks (95% CI: 1.112–2.888; p-value <0.001), which indicates a statistically significant increase in students’ EBM knowledge and skill, similar to a previous expert-taught face to face contact course. Self-reported confidences also increased significantly. However, our course did not have a major effect on students’ attitudes toward EBM (1.9–10.8%; p-value: 0.12–0.99).ConclusionIn developing countries, multiple strategy peer-taught online courses may be an effective alternative to face to face expert-taught courses, especially in the short term.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12909-017-0924-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Evaluation of an e-learning module under different tutorial guidance

“…Various settings are available for teaching EbM skills: classic frontal teaching [6,13], PBL-setting (ProblemBased-Learning) [14], e-learning with tutorial support [5,[15][16][17][18] or Blended Learning [19]. According to the current study situation, an e-learning-setting with tutorial support is suitable for teaching EbD and seems not be inferior to a faceto-face teaching format [17,20].…”

“…The e-learning format is also by no means inferior to traditional classroom teaching, but leads to at least as much knowledge growth [5,[28][29][30]. This increase in knowledge also applies to EbM e-learning modules in different countries, languages and settings [18,29]. Groups who are offered an EbM online course in a blended learning format in addition to the face-to-face course show more self-confi dence in dealing with statistical variables, greater effectiveness in literature research and easier transfer from theory to practice than control groups without an online module [19,31].…”

Black Ice: Five ways to get a grip on grouped self-assessments of competence for program evaluation

“…Of the 27 selected reports, 18 studies measured perceived confidence in or comfort with performing certain tasks. [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] Six studies measured competency or ability, 10,13,[22][23][24][25] two studies measured readiness, 9,16 and five studies e92 lacked sufficient detail to determine what they used. [26][27][28][29][30] Measuring one's willingness to perform a task or one's confidence helps promote reflection of performance 3 but is not the most effective method of evaluating learning or performance.…”

“…According to our analysis, five studies had not used any pre-intervention assessments at all. 5,10,18,22,28 Eighteen studies administered pre-post self-assessments, 4,[6][7][8][9][12][13][14][15][16][17]19,21,23,25,27,29,30 whereas only three studies employed post-intervention retrospective pre-test selfassessments. 11,24,26 One study had employed both pre-intervention pre-test and post-intervention retrospective pre-test self-assessments.…”

“…Of the 27 selected studies, 22 studies used the observable, clearly written, specific learning objectives from the program or intervention in their self-assessments. [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][21][22][23][24][25]28,29 Yet, five studies either lacked sufficient details to determine what they used or used topic areas and broad domains instead of learning objectives. 11,20,26,27,30 When selfassessments refer to ambiguous learning objectives, respondents may not be able to accurately interpret what they are expected to assess.…”