Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
VA Maryland Healthcare System, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Diagnosis (Berl). 2024 Jan 30;11(2):136-141. doi: 10.1515/dx-2023-0133. eCollection 2024 May 1.
Perform a pilot study of online game-based learning (GBL) using natural frequencies and feedback to teach diagnostic reasoning.
We conducted a multicenter randomized-controlled trial of computer-based training. We enrolled medical students, residents, practicing physicians and nurse practitioners. The intervention was a 45 min online GBL training vs. control education with a primary outcome of score on a scale of diagnostic accuracy (composed of 10 realistic case vignettes, requesting estimates of probability of disease after a test result, 0-100 points total).
Of 90 participants there were 30 students, 30 residents and 30 practicing clinicians. Of these 62 % (56/90) were female and 52 % (47/90) were white. Sixty were randomized to GBL intervention and 30 to control. The primary outcome of diagnostic accuracy immediately after training was better in GBL (mean accuracy score 59.4) vs. control (37.6), p=0.0005. The GBL group was then split evenly (30, 30) into no further intervention or weekly emails with case studies. Both GBL groups performed better than control at one-month and some continued effect at three-month follow up. Scores at one-month GBL (59.2) GBL plus emails (54.2) vs. control (33.9), p=0.024; three-months GBL (56.2), GBL plus emails (42.9) vs. control (35.1), p=0.076. Most participants would recommend GBL to colleagues (73 %), believed it was enjoyable (92 %) and believed it improves test interpretation (95 %).
In this pilot study, a single session with GBL nearly doubled score on a scale of diagnostic accuracy in medical trainees and practicing clinicians. The impact of GBL persisted after three months.
使用自然频率和反馈进行基于在线游戏的学习(GBL)的试点研究,以教授诊断推理。
我们进行了一项基于计算机的培训的多中心随机对照试验。我们招募了医学生、住院医师、执业医师和执业护士。干预措施是 45 分钟的在线 GBL 培训与对照教育,主要结果是诊断准确性量表上的分数(由 10 个现实病例描述组成,要求在测试结果后估计疾病的概率,总分为 0-100 分)。
90 名参与者中有 30 名学生、30 名住院医师和 30 名执业临床医生。其中 62%(56/90)为女性,52%(47/90)为白人。60 人被随机分配到 GBL 干预组,30 人分到对照组。培训后立即进行的诊断准确性主要结果在 GBL 组(平均准确性评分 59.4)优于对照组(37.6),p=0.0005。然后将 GBL 组平均分为两组(30 人一组),一组不进行进一步干预,另一组每周发送病例研究的电子邮件。两组 GBL 组在一个月和三个月的随访中都比对照组表现更好。一个月时 GBL 组(59.2)、GBL 加电子邮件组(54.2)与对照组(33.9)的比较,p=0.024;三个月时 GBL 组(56.2)、GBL 加电子邮件组(42.9)与对照组(35.1)的比较,p=0.076。大多数参与者(73%)会向同事推荐 GBL,92%的人认为它很有趣,95%的人认为它提高了测试解释能力。
在这项试点研究中,医学生和执业临床医生接受单次 GBL 培训后,诊断准确性量表上的分数几乎翻了一番。GBL 的影响在三个月后仍然存在。