Infectious and Tropical Diseases Department, Clermont-Ferrand University Hospital Center, Reference Center for Osteoarticular Infections, Regional Reference Center for Tick-Based Vector Diseases, Genome and Environment Microorganisms Laboratory, Clermont Auvergne University, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Research Unit ACCePPT self-medication, multi-professional support for patients, Clermont Auvergne University, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Infect Dis Now. 2022 Feb;52(1):18-22. doi: 10.1016/j.idnow.2021.11.001. Epub 2021 Nov 9.
To compare two learning methods for Lyme disease (e-learning versus face-to-face training) to assess knowledge and know-how.
The study population was volunteer general medicine residents and family physicians (FP). Face-to-face training on Lyme disease was offered to each group. E-learning training was then offered to those who had not attended the face-to-face training. Theoretical knowledge was assessed by an identical pre- and post-test questionnaire and know-how by a script concordance test.
Seventy learners (47 FPs and 23 general medicine residents) were included in the face-to-face training group and 61 (33 FPs and 28 general medicine residents) in the e-learning group. The pre- and post-test scores were significantly improved in the FP group (difference of 29.3±1.9 [P<0.0001] out of 100) as well as in the general medicine resident group (difference of 38.2±2.7 [P<0.0001] out of 100). E-learning was more effective than face-to-face training, particularly among general medicine residents (progression of mean difference of 44.3±3.4/100 vs. 30.9±4.0/100; P=0.0138) and to a lesser extent among FPs (progression of 25.3±2.3/100 vs. 31.9±2.7/100; P=0.0757). Forty-six script concordance tests were completed by FPs and 20 by general medicine residents. Script concordance test results did not seem significant between the subgroups.
E-learning seems to be a good alternative to face-to-face training for Lyme disease. It seems to be more effective than face-to-face training for the acquisition of theoretical knowledge. The script concordance test evaluation of know-how did not show any difference between the two learning methods.
比较两种莱姆病学习方法（电子学习与面对面培训），以评估知识和技能。
研究人群为志愿普通内科住院医师和家庭医生（FP）。为每组提供莱姆病面对面培训。然后为未参加面对面培训的人员提供电子学习培训。通过相同的预测试和后测试问卷评估理论知识，通过脚本一致性测试评估实践技能。
70 名学习者（47 名 FP 和 23 名普通内科住院医师）被纳入面对面培训组，61 名（33 名 FP 和 28 名普通内科住院医师）被纳入电子学习组。FP 组（预测试和后测试分数差值为 29.3±1.9 [P<0.0001]，满分 100 分）和普通内科住院医师组（差值为 38.2±2.7 [P<0.0001]，满分 100 分）的预测试和后测试分数均显著提高。电子学习比面对面培训更有效，特别是在普通内科住院医师中（平均差值的进展为 44.3±3.4/100 与 30.9±4.0/100；P=0.0138），在 FP 中效果略低（进展为 25.3±2.3/100 与 31.9±2.7/100；P=0.0757）。46 名 FP 和 20 名普通内科住院医师完成了脚本一致性测试。亚组之间的脚本一致性测试结果似乎没有显著差异。
电子学习似乎是莱姆病面对面培训的一种很好的替代方法。它似乎比面对面培训更能有效地获取理论知识。实践技能的脚本一致性测试评估没有显示出两种学习方法之间的任何差异。
