3.8 Article

Computer-based clinical simulation cases in oncology pharmacotherapy: Student perceptions from two campuses

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.cptl.2014.11.012

关键词

Interactivelearning; Oncology; Simulation; Perceptions

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To describe the development of computer-based clinical simulation cases (CBCSCs) in an oncology pharmacotherapy course and review student perceptions of this learning strategy. Methods: Hematologic/Oncologic Pharmacotherapy is a two-credit hour course for third-year student pharmacists. It provides students with an understanding and ability to deliver pharmaceutical care to patients with cancer. CBCSCs were prepared in advance using decision simulator technology. Student pharmacists in the 2013 course solved the CBCSCs in teams of three during the class on two campuses. Participants completed an Institutional Review Board-approved survey and rated agreement with statements about the utility of the CBCSCs using a 4-point Likert-type scale (4 completely agree to 1 completely disagree). Results: The survey response rate was 99% (n = 77 main campus and it = 14 satellite campus). Overall, the majority of students completely agreed or agreed that CBCSCs helped identify learning needs (89%), promoted understanding of key concepts (93.4%1, and should be continued in this course and other courses (90%). The preference of completing the CBCSCs individually, as opposed to a group format, was expressed. In contrast to student responses on the main campus, fewer students on the satellite campus agreed or strongly agreed that the CBCSCs should be continued in this course and others (93.8% vs 69.2%, respectively). Conclusions: CBCSCs are well-received by students and can be a useful mechanism to apply pharmacotherapy knowledge in a low-risk. environment to identify areas for continued improvement and areas of mastery. The differences in perception between the campuses require further study. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

3.8
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