A systematic review and meta-analysis of selected motor learning principles in physiotherapy and medical education.

Martin Sattelmayer, Simone Elsig, Roger Hilfiker, Gillian Baer
Author Information
  1. Martin Sattelmayer: Queen Margaret University, School of Health Sciences, Physiotherapy, Edinburgh, Scotland. martin.sattelmayer@gmail.com.
  2. Simone Elsig: University of Applied Sciences and Arts Western Switzerland Valais (HES-SO Valais-Wallis), School of Health Sciences, Leukerbad, Switzerland. simone.elsig@gmail.com.
  3. Roger Hilfiker: University of Applied Sciences and Arts Western Switzerland Valais (HES-SO Valais-Wallis), School of Health Sciences, Leukerbad, Switzerland. roger.hilfiker@gmail.com.
  4. Gillian Baer: Queen Margaret University, School of Health Sciences, Physiotherapy, Edinburgh, Scotland. GBaer@qmu.ac.uk.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Learning of procedural skills is an essential component in the education of future health professionals. There is little evidence on how procedural skills are best learnt and practiced in education. There is a need for educators to know what specific interventions could be used to increase learning of these skills. However, there is growing evidence from rehabilitation science, sport science and psychology that learning can be promoted with the application of motor learning principles. The aim of this review was to systematically evaluate the evidence for selected motor learning principles in physiotherapy and medical education. The selected principles were: whole or part practice, random or blocked practice, mental or no additional mental practice and terminal or concurrent feedback.
METHODS: CINAHL, Cochrane Central, Embase, Eric and Medline were systematically searched for eligible studies using pre-defined keywords. Included studies were evaluated on their risk of bias with the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool.
RESULTS: The search resulted in 740 records, following screening for relevance 15 randomised controlled trials including 695 participants were included in this systematic review. Most procedural skills in this review related to surgical procedures. Mental practice significantly improved performance on a post-acquisition test (SMD: 0.43, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.85). Terminal feedback significantly improved learning on a transfer test (SMD: 0.94, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.70). There were indications that whole practice had some advantages over part practice and random practice was superior to blocked practice on post-acquisition tests. All studies were evaluated as having a high risk of bias. Next to a possible performance bias in all included studies the method of sequence generation was often poorly reported.
CONCLUSIONS: There is some evidence to recommend the use of mental practice for procedural learning in medical education. There is limited evidence to conclude that terminal feedback is more effective than concurrent feedback on a transfer test. For the remaining parameters that were reviewed there was insufficient evidence to make definitive recommendations.

References

  1. Med Teach. 2006 Aug;28(5):447-52 [PMID: 16973459]
  2. Ugeskr Laeger. 2008 Oct 27;170(44):3531-3 [PMID: 18976616]
  3. Neurosurgery. 2007 Jul;61(1):142-8; discussion 148-9 [PMID: 17621029]
  4. BJOG. 2012 Aug;119(9):1040-8 [PMID: 22676644]
  5. Med Educ. 2011 Feb;45(2):111-4 [PMID: 21208256]
  6. Arch Dermatol. 2004 Nov;140(11):1357-61 [PMID: 15545545]
  7. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2012 Oct;22(5):732-9 [PMID: 22542770]
  8. J Mot Behav. 2007 Jan;39(1):40-8 [PMID: 17251170]
  9. Med Teach. 2008;30(8):764-7 [PMID: 18946819]
  10. Crit Care Med. 2011 Jun;39(6):1377-81 [PMID: 21317645]
  11. Med Teach. 2012;34(8):e573-81 [PMID: 22530719]
  12. Med Educ. 2013 Dec;47(12):1215-22 [PMID: 24206155]
  13. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2013 Jun;37(5):930-49 [PMID: 23583615]
  14. Hum Factors. 2013 Apr;55(2):461-70 [PMID: 23691838]
  15. J Mot Behav. 1998 Jun;30(2):180-92 [PMID: 20037033]
  16. Anesthesiology. 2008 May;108(5):831-40 [PMID: 18431118]
  17. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Nov;191(5):1811-4 [PMID: 15547570]
  18. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2002;7(2):117-31 [PMID: 12075144]
  19. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007 Dec;89(12):2819-27 [PMID: 18056516]
  20. Ann Surg. 2011 Feb;253(2):265-70 [PMID: 21245669]
  21. J Dent Educ. 1986 Jun;50(6):300-3 [PMID: 3458768]
  22. J Dent. 2006 Oct;34(9):641-7 [PMID: 16413652]
  23. Can J Surg. 2005 Oct;48(5):387-93 [PMID: 16248138]
  24. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2004 Jan;27(1):36-42 [PMID: 14739872]
  25. Acta Psychol (Amst). 1998 Nov;100(1-2):9-24 [PMID: 9844553]
  26. Neuroimage. 2001 Jul;14(1 Pt 2):S103-9 [PMID: 11373140]
  27. Psychol Bull. 1984 May;95(3):355-86 [PMID: 6399752]
  28. BMJ. 2003 Sep 6;327(7414):557-60 [PMID: 12958120]
  29. Spine J. 2006 Mar-Apr;6(2):138-45 [PMID: 16517384]
  30. Am J Surg. 2005 Sep;190(3):359-63 [PMID: 16105518]
  31. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928 [PMID: 22008217]
  32. J Med Educ. 1983 Apr;58(4):335-40 [PMID: 6834412]
  33. Am J Surg. 2002 Nov;184(5):465-70 [PMID: 12433615]
  34. J Surg Educ. 2014 Mar-Apr;71(2):169-75 [PMID: 24602704]
  35. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000 Nov;53(11):1119-29 [PMID: 11106885]
  36. Med Educ. 2011 Feb;45(2):119-31 [PMID: 21166837]
  37. Am J Surg. 2011 Jan;201(1):31-9 [PMID: 21167363]
  38. Med Educ. 1999 Jan;33(1):19-23 [PMID: 10211272]
  39. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Aug;201(2):218.e1-9 [PMID: 19481728]
  40. J Sports Sci. 2010 Oct;28(12):1277-85 [PMID: 20845219]
  41. J Dent Educ. 1981 Sep;45(9):567-75 [PMID: 6943174]
  42. Med Educ. 2008 Jun;42(6):607-12 [PMID: 18435713]
  43. Med Educ. 2010 Jan;44(1):75-84 [PMID: 20078758]
  44. BMC Med Educ. 2012;12:98 [PMID: 23082941]
  45. Acad Med. 2009 Oct;84(10 Suppl):S54-7 [PMID: 19907387]
  46. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2011 Aug;42(2):158-66 [PMID: 21612950]
  47. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2008 Jul-Aug;22(4):385-95 [PMID: 18326891]
  48. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013 May;131(5):1194-201 [PMID: 23629100]
  49. Psychon Bull Rev. 2002 Jun;9(2):185-211 [PMID: 12120783]
  50. Resuscitation. 2010 Dec;81(12):1692-7 [PMID: 21067856]
  51. Surg Endosc. 2008 Jul;22(7):1614-9 [PMID: 17973165]
  52. Med Teach. 2013 Oct;35(10):801-5 [PMID: 23782045]
  53. Scand J Surg. 2011;100(2):78-85 [PMID: 21737382]
  54. Resuscitation. 2010 Dec;81(12):1687-91 [PMID: 20638765]
  55. J Emerg Med. 1997 May-Jun;15(3):387-91 [PMID: 9258796]
  56. Can J Gastroenterol. 2008 Sep;22(9):767-70 [PMID: 18818791]
  57. J Otolaryngol. 2005 Oct;34(5):328-32 [PMID: 16181595]
  58. Br J Anaesth. 2013 Feb;110(2):299-304 [PMID: 23035053]
  59. Can J Surg. 1995 Feb;38(1):33-8 [PMID: 7882206]
  60. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2014 May;19(2):251-72 [PMID: 23712700]
  61. Can J Surg. 2006 Dec;49(6):412-6 [PMID: 17234070]
  62. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006 Jun;87(6):842-52 [PMID: 16731221]
  63. Simul Healthc. 2011 Aug;6 Suppl:S10-3 [PMID: 21817857]
  64. Surg Endosc. 2010 Jan;24(1):179-87 [PMID: 19633892]
  65. Phys Ther. 2007 Apr;87(4):418-30 [PMID: 17341511]
  66. Acad Med. 1994 Dec;69(12):993-5 [PMID: 7999197]
  67. N Engl J Med. 1994 May 5;330(18):1280-6 [PMID: 8145784]

MeSH Term

Clinical Competence
Education, Medical
Feedback
Female
Humans
Male
Motor Skills
Physical Therapy Modalities
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
Task Performance and Analysis

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0practicelearningevidenceeducation0proceduralskillsprinciplesreviewfeedbackstudiesbiasmotorselectedmedicalmentalrisktestsciencesystematicallyphysiotherapywholepartrandomblockedterminalconcurrentCochraneevaluatedincludedsystematicsignificantlyimprovedperformancepost-acquisitionSMD:95%CItransferBACKGROUND:LearningessentialcomponentfuturehealthprofessionalslittlebestlearntpracticedneededucatorsknowspecificinterventionsusedincreaseHowevergrowingrehabilitationsportpsychologycanpromotedapplicationaimevaluatewere:additionalMETHODS:CINAHLCentralEmbaseEricMedlinesearchedeligibleusingpre-definedkeywordsIncludedCollaboration'stoolRESULTS:searchresulted740recordsfollowingscreeningrelevance15randomisedcontrolledtrialsincluding695participantsrelatedsurgicalproceduresMental430185Terminal9418170indicationsadvantagessuperiortestshighNextpossiblemethodsequencegenerationoftenpoorlyreportedCONCLUSIONS:recommenduselimitedconcludeeffectiveremainingparametersreviewedinsufficientmakedefinitiverecommendationsmeta-analysis

Similar Articles

Cited By