Trout Jonathan, Roberts Matthew H, Carver Deborah, Martinez Paola
Department of Neurology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
School of Medicine Greenville, University of South Carolina.
Neurol Educ. 2025 Aug 26;4(3):e200236. doi: 10.1212/NE9.0000000000200236. eCollection 2025 Sep.
Teaching medical students how to perform an accurate neurologic examination (NE) is a primary objective of the neurology clerkship. Despite this emphasis, medical students often lack confidence in performing the NE. There is limited research on the effect of teacher-centered instruction methods on NE confidence. We designed this study to compare the impact of a lecture-based (LB) didactic and a direct instruction (DI) didactic on medical students' NE confidence during the neurology clerkship.
We conducted a teacher-centered, NE didactic during a four-week neurology clerkship. Third-year medical students (MS3s) were assigned to an LB didactic providing an overview of the NE or a DI didactic focused on examination pitfalls and practice opportunities. Preclerkship and postclerkship surveys assessed self-reported confidence of MS3s in performing various aspects of the NE and the perceived benefit of each didactic on examination skills. Clerkship evaluations of physical examination skills assessed the impact of each teaching method on NE performance. The primary outcome was change in composite NE confidence scores from baseline. Secondary outcomes were change in individual NE confidence scores from baseline, perceived didactic benefit, and clerkship physical examination scores.
A total of 103 MS3s participated in our study (LB = 52, DI = 51). Change in NE confidence scores from baseline did not differ between groups (LB mean = 7.62, DI mean = 7.66, = 0.97, = 0.007). Presurvey strength testing confidence scores were higher in the DI group (LB mean = 3.04, DI mean = 3.44, = 0.038, = 0.46). There were no other significant differences in other confidence scores between groups ( > 0.13). Students reported higher agreement with the DI didactic being beneficial for their NE skills than the LB didactic (LB mean = 3.97, DI mean = 4.52, = 0.0013, = 0.82). Clerkship physical examination evaluation scores did not differ between groups (LB and DI median = 4, interquartile range [IQR] = 3-4, = 0.074, = 0.070).
Emphasizing challenging NE pitfalls with DI is perceived by students to be more beneficial for learning examination skills than LB methods. However, DI is not clearly superior to LB teaching methods in improving NE confidence. Future research could further evaluate the efficacy of DI teaching methods with randomized trials and interval assessment of their effects on NE confidence throughout the neurology clerkship.
教授医学生如何进行准确的神经系统检查(NE)是神经科实习的主要目标。尽管有此重点强调,但医学生在进行神经系统检查时往往缺乏信心。关于以教师为中心的教学方法对神经系统检查信心的影响的研究有限。我们设计本研究以比较基于讲座(LB)的理论教学和直接指导(DI)的理论教学对神经科实习期间医学生神经系统检查信心的影响。
在为期四周的神经科实习期间,我们开展了以教师为中心的神经系统检查理论教学。三年级医学生(MS3)被分配到提供神经系统检查概述的基于讲座的理论教学组,或专注于检查陷阱和实践机会的直接指导理论教学组。实习前和实习后的调查评估了MS3在进行神经系统检查各个方面的自我报告信心以及每种理论教学对检查技能的感知益处。体格检查技能的实习评估评估了每种教学方法对神经系统检查表现的影响。主要结局是综合神经系统检查信心得分相对于基线的变化。次要结局是个体神经系统检查信心得分相对于基线的变化、感知的理论教学益处以及实习体格检查得分。
共有103名MS3参与了我们的研究(LB组 = 52人,DI组 = 51人)。两组之间神经系统检查信心得分相对于基线的变化无差异(LB组均值 = 7.62,DI组均值 = 7.66,P = 0.97,自由度 = 0.007)。直接指导组的预调查力量测试信心得分更高(LB组均值 = 3.04,DI组均值 = 3.44,P = 0.038,自由度 = 0.46)。两组之间其他信心得分无其他显著差异(P > 0.13)。与基于讲座的理论教学相比,学生报告对直接指导理论教学对其神经系统检查技能有益的认同度更高(LB组均值 = 3.97,DI组均值 = 4.52,P = 0.0013,自由度 = 0.82)。两组之间实习体格检查评估得分无差异(LB组和DI组中位数 = 4,四分位间距[IQR] = 3 - 4,P = 0.074,自由度 = 0.070)。
学生认为,与基于讲座的方法相比,直接指导强调具有挑战性的神经系统检查陷阱对学习检查技能更有益。然而,在提高神经系统检查信心方面,直接指导并不明显优于基于讲座的教学方法。未来的研究可以通过随机试验进一步评估直接指导教学方法的有效性,并在整个神经科实习期间对其对神经系统检查信心的影响进行间隔评估。