4.6 Article

The impact of the Virtual Ophthalmology Clinic on medical students' learning: a randomised controlled trial

Journal

EYE
Volume 27, Issue 10, Pages 1151-1157

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/eye.2013.143

Keywords

medical student education; computer-based learning; simulation

Categories

Funding

  1. Committee for University Teaching and Staff Development (CUTSD) National Teaching Development Grant Australia

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aim The Virtual Ophthalmology Clinic (VOC) is an interactive web-based teaching module, with special emphasis on history taking and clinical reasoning skills. The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of VOC on medical students' learning. Methods A randomised controlled trial (RCT) was conducted with medical students from the University of Sydney (n = 188) who were randomly assigned into either an experimental (n = 93) or a control group (n = 95). A pre- and post-test and student satisfaction questionnaire were administered. Twelve months later a follow-up test was conducted to determine the long-term retention rate of graduates. Results There was a statistically significant (P<0.001) within-subject improvement preto post rotation in the number of correctly answered questions for both the control and experimental groups (mean improvement for control 10%, 95% CI 1.3-2.6, and for experimental 17.5%, 95% CI 3.0-4.0). The improvement was significantly greater in the experimental group (mean difference in improvement between groups 7.5%, 95% CI 0.8-2.3, P<0.001). At 12 months follow-up testing, the experimental group scored on average 1.6 (8%) (95% CI 0.4 to 2.7, P = 0.007) higher than the controls. Conclusion On the basis of a statistically significant improvement in academic performance and highly positive student feedback, the implementation of VOC may provide a means to address challenges to ophthalmic learning outcomes in an already crowded medical curriculum.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available