Learning through a virtual patient vs. recorded lecture: a comparison of knowledge retention in a trauma case.
Olivier Courteille, Madelen Fahlstedt, Johnson Ho, Leif Hedman, Uno Fors, Hans von Holst, Li Felländer-Tsai, Hans Möller
Author Information
Johnson Ho: Unit of Neuronic Engineering, School of Technology and Health, Royal Institute of Technology, Huddinge, Stockholm, Sweden.
Leif Hedman: Department of Psychology, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.
Uno Fors: Department of Computer and Systems Sciences, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden.
Hans von Holst: Unit of Neuronic Engineering, School of Technology and Health, Royal Institute of Technology, Huddinge, Stockholm, Sweden.
Li Felländer-Tsai: Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Division of Orthopaedics and Biotechnology, Karolin-ska Institutet, Karolinska University Hospital, Huddinge, Stockholm, Sweden.
Hans Möller: Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Division of Orthopaedics and Biotechnology, Karolin-ska Institutet, Karolinska University Hospital, Huddinge, Stockholm, Sweden.
OBJECTIVES: To compare medical students' and residents' knowledge retention of assessment, diagnosis and treatment procedures, as well as a learning experience, of patients with spinal trauma after training with either a Virtual patient case or a video-recorded traditional lecture. METHODS: A total of 170 volunteers (85 medical students and 85 residents in orthopedic surgery) were randomly allocated (stratified for student/resident and gender) to either a video-recorded standard lecture or a Virtual patient-based training session where they interactively assessed a clinical case portraying a motorcycle accident. The knowledge retention was assessed by a test immediately following the educational intervention and repeated after a minimum of 2 months. Participants' learning experiences were evaluated with exit questionnaires. A repeated-measures analysis of variance was applied on knowledge scores. A total of 81% (n = 138) of the Participants completed both tests. RESULTS: There was a small but significant decline in first and second test results for both groups (F = 18.154, p = 0.00). However, no significant differences in short-term and long-term knowledge retention were observed between the two teaching methods. The Virtual patient group reported higher learning experience levels in engagement, stimulation, general perception, and expectations. CONCLUSIONS: Participants' levels engagement were reported in favor of the VP format. Similar knowledge retention was achieved through either a Virtual patient or a recorded lecture.
