Dubey Elizebeth, Paxton James H, Smylie Laura, Welch Robert D, Messman Anne
Department of Emergency Medicine, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, MI, USA.
J Med Educ Curric Dev. 2023 Aug 7;10:23821205231193283. doi: 10.1177/23821205231193283. eCollection 2023 Jan-Dec.
The effectiveness of lecture-based (LB) formats for residency education has recently been challenged as the gold standard. Studies suggest a flipped classroom (FC) lecture improves resident satisfaction, but evidence that showing improved knowledge acquisition is lacking. To determine whether the flipped classroom model improves knowledge acquisition compared to traditional LB model.
Emergency medicine resident physicians at 2 academic programs were included in December 2019; at Sinai-Grace Hospital, a traditional lecture was the teaching method and at Detroit Receiving Hospital, FC was utilized. Residents completed prelecture and postlecture content tests. The primary outcome was change in test results (pretest to post-test). A noninferiority design comparing the changes between intervention and control groups was utilized (1-sided t-test, noninferiority margin of -0.5; 1-sided alpha = 0.05).
Results were available for 31 residents (17 controls and 14 interventions) out of 83 enrolled. There were 14 postgraduate year 1 (PGY-1), 9 PGY-2, and 8 PGY-3 residents. The mean difference in score was +0.71 (SD 1.38) and +0.77 (SD 1.48) for the FC and LB groups, respectively. This resulted in a mean difference between groups of -0.05 (lower bound of the upper 95% confidence interval -0.93 and therefore crossing the noninferiority margin of -0.05; = .20).
This study of resident education at 2 training programs was unable to demonstrate noninferiority of an FC format compared to standard lecture. Surprisingly, there was little improvement in test results after both teaching formats. Larger studies are needed to power results.
基于讲座的(LB)住院医师教育模式作为金标准,其有效性最近受到了挑战。研究表明,翻转课堂(FC)讲座提高了住院医师的满意度,但缺乏显示知识获取得到改善的证据。旨在确定与传统LB模式相比,翻转课堂模式是否能提高知识获取。
2019年12月纳入了2个学术项目的急诊医学住院医师;在西奈-格雷斯医院,采用传统讲座作为教学方法,在底特律接收医院,则采用FC。住院医师完成课前和课后内容测试。主要结果是测试结果的变化(课前到课后)。采用非劣效性设计比较干预组和对照组之间的变化(单侧t检验,非劣效性界值为-0.5;单侧α=0.05)。
83名入组者中,有31名住院医师(17名对照组和14名干预组)有结果。有14名一年级住院医师(PGY-1)、9名PGY-2和8名PGY-3住院医师。FC组和LB组的平均得分差异分别为+0.71(标准差1.38)和+0.77(标准差1.48)。这导致两组之间的平均差异为-0.05(95%置信区间上限的下限为-0.93,因此超过了-0.05的非劣效性界值;P=0.20)。
这项对2个培训项目住院医师教育的研究未能证明FC模式相对于标准讲座的非劣效性。令人惊讶的是,两种教学模式后的测试结果几乎没有改善。需要更大规模的研究来得出有力结果。