Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Learning about screening using an online or live lecture

Does it matter?

  • Original Articles
  • Published:
Journal of General Internal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of an online lecture versus a live lecture on screening given to medical students who are participating in an outpatient clerkship.

DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, controlled study.

PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: Ninety-five senior medical students in a primary care medicine clerkship based at university and distant clinic sites.

INTERVENTION AND MEASUREMENTS: Forty-eight medical students were randomized to the live lecture on screening (live lecture group), and forty-seven medical students were randomized to the online lecture on screening (online lecture group). Outcome measures included students’ knowledge, use of time, and satisfaction with the lecture experience.

RESULTS: Compared to students in the live lecture group, students in the online lecture group demonstrated equal post-intervention knowledge of screening (P=.91) and expended 50 minutes less time to complete the lecture. Online lecture students who used the audio feed of the lecture were equally satisfied with the lecture as the live lecture students. Without the audio feed, online lecture students were less satisfied.

CONCLUSIONS: An online lecture on screening is a feasible, efficient, and effective method to teach students on outpatient clerkships about principles of screening.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kassirer JP. Preserving quality as the site of medical education shifts. Acad Med. 1998;73(10 suppl):120–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Hilger AE, Hamrick HJ, Denny FW Jr. Computer instruction in learning concepts of streptococcal pharyngitis. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1996;150:629–31.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Carr MM, Reznick RK, Brown DH. Comparison of computer-assisted instruction and seminar instruction to acquire psychomotor and cognitive knowledge of epistaxis management. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1999;121:430–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Pusic M, Johnson K, Duggan A. Utilization of a pediatric emergency department education computer. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2001;155:129–34.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. US Preventive Services Task Force. Guide to Clinical Preventive Services. 2nd ed. Baltimore, Md: Williams and Wilkins; 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Christenson J, Parrish K, Barabe S, et al. A comparison of multimedia and standard advanced cardiac life support learning. Acad Emerg Med. 1998;5:702–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Fincher RE, Abdulla AM, Sridharan MR, Houghton JL, Henke JS. Computer-assisted learning compared with weekly seminars for teaching fundamental electrocardiography to junior medical students. South Med J. 1988;81:1291–4.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Umble KE, Cervero RM, Yang B, Atkinson WL. Effects of traditional classroom and distance continuing education: a theory-driven evaluation of a vaccine-preventable diseases course. Amer J Public Health. 2000;90:1218–24.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Maki RH, Maki WS, Patterson M, Whittaker PD. Evaluation of a Web-based introductory psychology course: I. Learning and satisfaction in on-line versus lecture courses. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 2000;32:230–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Rogers DA, Regehr G, Yeh KA, Howdieshell TR. Computer-assisted learning versus a lecture and feedback seminar for teaching a basic surgical technical skill. Am J Surg. 1998;175:508–10.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Bachman MW, Lua MJ, Clay DJ, Rudney JD. Comparing traditional lecture vs. computer-based instruction for oral anatomy. J Dent Educ. 1998;62:587–91.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Keane DR, Norman GR, Vickers J. The inadequacy of recent research on computer-assisted instruction. Acad Med. 1991;66:44–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Clark RE. Dangers in evaluation of instructional media. Acad Med. 1992;12:819–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Dick W, Carey L. The Systematic Design of Instruction, 4th Ed. New York: HarperCollins Publishers; 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Bridges AJ, Reid JC, Cutts JH III, Hazelwood S, Sharp GC, Mitchell JA. A comparative study of computer-assisted instruction for rheumatology. Arthritis Rheum. 1993;36:577–80.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Devitt P, Worthley S, Palmer E, Cehic D. Evaluation of a computer based package on electrocardiography. Aust N Z J Med. 1998;28:432–5.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Wofford M, Spickard A III, Wofford J. The computer-based lecture. J Gen Intern Med. 2001;16:464–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Summers AN, Rinehart GC, Simpson D, Redlich PN. Acquisition of surgical skills: a randomized trial of didactic, videotape, and computer-based training. Surgery. 1999;126:330–6.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. D’Alessandro DM, Kreiter CD, Erkonen WE, Winter RJ, Knapp HR. Longitudinal follow-up comparison of educational interventions: multimedia textbook, traditional lecture, and printed textbook. Acad Radiol. 1997;4:719–23.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. the Department of Medicine and Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, USA

    Anderson Spickard III MD, MS

  2. the Department of Pediatrics, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, USA

    Joseph Gigante MD

  3. Biomedical Informatics Engineering, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn

    Nabil Alrajeh MS, PhD

  4. Institute for Public Policy Studies, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn

    David Cordray PhD

Authors
  1. Anderson Spickard III MD, MS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nabil Alrajeh MS, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. David Cordray PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Joseph Gigante MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anderson Spickard III MD, MS.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Spickard, A., Alrajeh, N., Cordray, D. et al. Learning about screening using an online or live lecture. J GEN INTERN MED 17, 540–545 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2002.10731.x

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2002.10731.x

Key words

Search

Navigation