4.6 Article

Computer-Assisted Teaching of Skin Flap Surgery: Validation of a Mobile Platform Software for Medical Students

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 8, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0065833

关键词

-

资金

  1. CNPq (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico) [475934/2011-3]
  2. CNPq PQ fellowship [305531/2012-3]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of this study was to develop and validate a multimedia software application for mobile platforms to assist in the teaching and learning process of design and construction of a skin flap. Traditional training in surgery is based on learning by doing. Initially, the use of cadavers and animal models appeared to be a valid alternative for training. However, many conflicts with these training models prompted progression to synthetic and virtual reality models. Fifty volunteer fifth- and sixth-year medical students completed a pretest and were randomly allocated into two groups of 25 students each. The control group was exposed for 5 minutes to a standard text-based print article, while the test group used multimedia software describing how to fashion a rhomboid flap. Each group then performed a cutaneous flap on a training bench model while being evaluated by three blinded BSPS (Brazilian Society of Plastic Surgery) board-certified surgeons using the OSATS (Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skill) protocol and answered a post-test. The text-based group was then tested again using the software. The computer-assisted learning (CAL) group had superior performance as confirmed by checklist scores (p<0.002), overall global assessment (p = 0.017) and post-test results (p<0.001). All participants ranked the multimedia method as the best study tool. CAL learners exhibited better subjective and objective performance when fashioning rhomboid flaps as compared to those taught with standard print material. These findings indicate that students preferred to learn using the multimedia method.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据