Suppr超能文献

通过事实核查员的“横向阅读”技巧体验式学习,赋能三年级医学生在线检测偏见和医学错误信息。

Empowering Third-Year Medical Students to Detect Bias and Medical Misinformation Online via Experiential Learning of "Lateral Reading," A Fact-Checker's Technique.

作者信息

McKinney Zeke J, Tessier Katelyn M, Shaheen Zachary R, Schwitzer Gary, Olson Andrew P J, Scheurer Johannah M, Krohn Kristina M

机构信息

School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.

Masonic Cancer Center, Biostatistics Core, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.

出版信息

Teach Learn Med. 2024 Sep 27:1-12. doi: 10.1080/10401334.2024.2405542.

Abstract

: Misleading health information is detrimental to public health. Even physicians can be misled by biased health information; however, medical students and physicians are not taught some of the most effective techniques for identifying bias and misinformation online. : Using the stages of Kolb's experiential learning cycle as a framework, we aimed to teach 117 third-year students at a United States medical school to apply a fact-checking technique for identifying bias and misinformation called "lateral reading" through a 50-minute learning cycle in a 90-minute class. Each student's was to independently read a biased article and rate its credibility, demonstrating their baseline skills at identifying bias. Students were given structured opportunities for through individual and large group discussion. Students were guided through to determine techniques and frameworks utilized by fact checkers, specifically "lateral reading"-utilizing the internet to research the background of the author, organization, and citations using independent sources before exploring the article itself in depth. Students' included re-rating the credibility of the same article and discussing further implications with classmates and instructors. : In January 2020, sessions were offered to third-year medical students during their required, longitudinal transition-to-residency course. : Compared to baseline, when using lateral reading, students deemed the article less credible. Students' active experimentation changed whether they identified the organization and sources behind the article as credible. Notably, 86% (53/62) of students who viewed the organization positively pre-intervention did not describe the organization positively post intervention. Similarly, 66% (36/55) of students who cited the sources as positive pre-exercise changed their assessment after the exercise. While three students mentioned the author negatively pre-intervention, none of the 21 students who described the author in a negative fashion post-intervention described the author negatively pre-intervention. Positively describing the organization, author, or sources pre-intervention correlated with differences in credibility rating after the intervention. These findings indicate that teaching students to read laterally may increase their ability to detect bias in online medical information. : Further research is needed to determine whether students who learned lateral reading experiential learning will apply this skill in their education and career. Additionally, research should assess whether this skill helps future physicians counter bias and misinformation in ways that improve health.

摘要

误导性的健康信息对公众健康有害。即使是医生也可能被有偏见的健康信息误导;然而,医学生和医生并未学习一些在线识别偏见和错误信息的最有效技巧。

以科尔布体验式学习循环的阶段为框架,我们旨在通过在90分钟的课程中进行一个50分钟的学习循环,教授美国一所医学院的117名三年级学生应用一种名为“横向阅读”的事实核查技巧来识别偏见和错误信息。每个学生要独立阅读一篇有偏见的文章并对其可信度进行评分,展示他们识别偏见的基线技能。通过个人和小组讨论,为学生提供了结构化的机会进行反思观察。引导学生进行抽象概念化,以确定事实核查人员所使用的技巧和框架,特别是“横向阅读”——在深入探究文章本身之前,利用互联网通过独立来源研究作者、机构和引用内容的背景。学生的主动实践包括重新评估同一篇文章的可信度,并与同学和教师讨论进一步的影响。

2020年1月,在三年级医学生必修的纵向住院医师过渡课程期间开展了相关课程。

与基线相比,使用横向阅读时,学生认为文章的可信度较低。学生的主动实践改变了他们是否认为文章背后的机构和来源可信。值得注意的是,干预前对该机构给予正面评价的学生中,86%(53/62)在干预后没有对该机构给予正面描述。同样,练习前认为来源积极的学生中,66%(36/55)在练习后改变了他们的评估。虽然有三名学生在干预前对作者给予负面评价,但干预后以负面方式描述作者的21名学生中,没有一人在干预前对作者给予负面描述。干预前对机构、作者或来源给予正面描述与干预后可信度评级的差异相关。这些发现表明教学生横向阅读可能会提高他们检测在线医学信息中偏见的能力。

需要进一步研究以确定通过体验式学习学会横向阅读的学生是否会在其自身实践中应用这项技能。此外,研究应评估这项技能是否有助于未来的医生以改善健康的方式对抗偏见和错误信息。

相似文献

4
Teaching lateral reading: Interventions to help people read like fact checkers.
Curr Opin Psychol. 2024 Feb;55:101737. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2023.101737. Epub 2023 Nov 15.
5
Theory in action for graduate nurse educator students: An experiential learning project.
Nurse Educ Today. 2024 Dec;143:106391. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2024.106391. Epub 2024 Sep 3.
9
Impact of summer programmes on the outcomes of disadvantaged or 'at risk' young people: A systematic review.
Campbell Syst Rev. 2024 Jun 13;20(2):e1406. doi: 10.1002/cl2.1406. eCollection 2024 Jun.
10
The effectiveness of internet-based e-learning on clinician behavior and patient outcomes: a systematic review protocol.
JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2015 Jan;13(1):52-64. doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-2015-1919.

本文引用的文献

3
Can a validated website help improve university students' e-health literacy?
Ann Ig. 2023 May-Jun;35(3):257-268. doi: 10.7416/ai.2022.2542. Epub 2022 Sep 29.
4
Adolescents' credibility justifications when evaluating online texts.
Educ Inf Technol (Dordr). 2022;27(6):7421-7450. doi: 10.1007/s10639-022-10907-x. Epub 2022 Feb 10.
5
eHealth Literacy Instruments: Systematic Review of Measurement Properties.
J Med Internet Res. 2021 Nov 15;23(11):e30644. doi: 10.2196/30644.
8
Pandemics and infodemics: Research on the effects of misinformation on memory.
Hum Behav Emerg Technol. 2021 Jan;3(1):8-12. doi: 10.1002/hbe2.228. Epub 2020 Nov 23.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验