Premium
Preparing for obstetric anaesthesia—An educational randomised controlled trial comparing e‐learning to written course material
Author(s) -
Andersson Mette Legaard,
Duch Patricia,
Bessmann Ebbe Lahn,
Lundstrøm Lars Hyldborg,
Ekelund Kim
Publication year - 2023
Publication title -
acta anaesthesiologica scandinavica
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.738
H-Index - 107
eISSN - 1399-6576
pISSN - 0001-5172
DOI - 10.1111/aas.14148
Subject(s) - medicine , randomized controlled trial , course (navigation) , anxiety , modalities , surgery , astronomy , psychiatry , sociology , social science , physics
Background E‐learning is increasingly used in postgraduate medical education. Its numerous benefits include an enhanced learning experience through learning style individualisation, interactive elements, and assessment through tests and quizzes. Current meta‐analyses conclude that the overall effectiveness of e‐learning is comparable to traditional teaching modalities. However, studies demonstrating its benefits are heterogeneous and of varying quality. This randomised controlled trial aims to investigate whether contemporary e‐learning completed prior to a course in obstetric anaesthesia prepares the course participants better than self‐study of written course material. Methods A randomised controlled trial allocated second‐year resident anaesthetists to receive either e‐learning in postpartum haemorrhage and written course material in preeclampsia or e‐learning in preeclampsia and written course material in postpartum haemorrhage, prior to a compulsory course in obstetric anaesthesia. The primary outcome was knowledge after completion of e‐learning before the course, assessed by type X multiple‐choice questions with a score ranging from zero to 35. The secondary outcomes were anxiety level before course simulations, performance during course simulations, and knowledge four and 12 weeks after the course. Results The per protocol analysis of the primary outcome included 45 participants and demonstrated a mean difference of 1.8 (95% CI 0.7–2.9; p = .002) in knowledge after completion of e‐learning before the course, in favour of e‐learning compared to written course material. There were no statistically significant differences in the secondary outcomes. Conclusion This blinded parallel group randomised controlled trial found a numerically small but statistically significant difference in knowledge favouring e‐learning over written course material.