Premium
Comparison of directed and self‐directed learning in evidence‐based medicine: a randomised controlled trial
Author(s) -
Bradley Peter,
Oterholt Christina,
Herrin Jeph,
Nordheim Lena,
Bjørndal Arild
Publication year - 2005
Publication title -
medical education
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.776
H-Index - 138
eISSN - 1365-2923
pISSN - 0308-0110
DOI - 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02268.x
Subject(s) - critical appraisal , psychological intervention , medicine , inclusion (mineral) , confidence interval , autodidacticism , wilcoxon signed rank test , randomized controlled trial , intervention (counseling) , medical education , test (biology) , family medicine , psychology , alternative medicine , nursing , social psychology , paleontology , pathology , biology , mann–whitney u test
Objectives To compare 2 educational pro‐ grammes for teaching evidence‐based medicine (EBM). Design Prospective randomised controlled trial accompanied by a qualitative evaluation. Setting University of Oslo, Norway, 2002–03. Participants A total of 175 students entered the study. All tenth semester medical students from 3 semesters were eligible for inclusion if they completed baseline assessment and consent forms and either attended teaching on the first day of the semester or gave reasons for their absence on the first day in advance. Interventions One intervention was based on computer‐assisted, self‐directed learning ( self‐directed intervention ), whilst the other was organised as workshops based on social learning theory ( directed intervention ) . Both educational interventions consisted of 5 half‐day sessions. Main outcome measures The primary outcomes were knowledge about EBM and skills in critical appraisal. A secondary outcome measured attitudes to EBM. Outcomes were compared on an intention‐to‐treat basis using a stratified Wilcoxon rank‐sum test. Results There were no differences in outcomes for the 2 study groups in terms of EBM knowledge (mean deviation 0.0 [95% confidence interval − 1.0, 1.0], P = 0.8), critical appraisal skills (MD 0.1 [95% CI − 0.9, 1.1], P = 0.5), or attitudes to EBM (MD − 0.3 [95% CI − 1.4, 0.8], P = 0.5). Follow‐up rates were 96%, 97% and 63%, respectively. Conclusions This trial and its accompanying qualitative evaluation suggest that self‐directed, computer‐assisted learning may be an alternative format for teaching EBM. However, further research is needed to confirm this and investigate alternative educational models.