Comparing the Efficacy of Individual Approaches and Team-Based Approaches in Solving Clinical Case Vignettes.

Amita Singh, Amita Kumari, Anita Kumari, Ayesha Juhi, Anup Kumar D Dhanvijay, Mohammed J Pinjar, Himel Mondal, Pratima Gupta
Author Information
  1. Amita Singh: Physiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Deoghar, Jharkhand, IND.
  2. Amita Kumari: Physiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Deoghar, Jharkhand, IND.
  3. Anita Kumari: Physiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Deoghar, Jharkhand, IND.
  4. Ayesha Juhi: Physiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Deoghar, Jharkhand, IND.
  5. Anup Kumar D Dhanvijay: Physiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences Deoghar, Jharkhand, IND.
  6. Mohammed J Pinjar: Physiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Deoghar, Jharkhand, IND.
  7. Himel Mondal: Physiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Deoghar, Jharkhand, IND.
  8. Pratima Gupta: Microbiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Deoghar, Jharkhand, IND.

Abstract

Background Clinical case vignettes are a widely adopted pedagogical approach in medical education. The cases may be presented to students with a closed response option for objectivity. While solving clinical cases has demonstrated its effectiveness in enhancing medical students' clinical reasoning, there is an ongoing debate regarding the most effective approach: individual problem-solving or team-based problem-solving. Objective To observe and compare the score obtained from individual clinical problem-solving approaches versus team-based clinical problem-solving approaches. Methods After obtaining consent, a total of 100 students were randomly selected for the study. The participants were divided into two groups: an individual approach group (IAG) (n=25) and a team-based approach group (TAG) comprising 25 groups of three students each. Both groups were presented with a set of 10 clinical problems, each requiring a closed-answer response of "yes", "no", or "don't know". The participants' responses were recorded and analyzed to evaluate their problem-solving efficacy. Results A total of 25 responses were obtained from 25 students from the IAG group and 25 responses from 25 groups from the TAG group. There was no difference between the score in IAG (7.44±1.12) and TAG (7.52 1.66) p-value=0.58. There was no difference between individual scores in 10 questions between IAG and TAG groups. Conclusion The study found no significant score differences between individual and team-based clinical case-solving groups. Hence, for the objective type of case-solving pattern used in this study, a team-based approach may not be necessary. Further research is needed to explore factors for such findings in future studies.

Keywords

References

  1. Med Teach. 2003 Nov;25(6):609-16 [PMID: 15369908]
  2. BMC Med Educ. 2022 Feb 7;22(1):81 [PMID: 35125094]
  3. Int J Appl Basic Med Res. 2022 Jan-Mar;12(1):1-3 [PMID: 35265472]
  4. Nurse Educ Today. 2016 Oct;45:185-92 [PMID: 27541947]
  5. J Adv Med Educ Prof. 2021 Jan;9(1):8-17 [PMID: 33521136]
  6. Am J Med Sci. 2014 Jul;348(1):52-6 [PMID: 24113508]
  7. J Med Educ Curric Dev. 2016 Apr 27;3: [PMID: 29349306]
  8. Adv Physiol Educ. 2013 Dec;37(4):356-60 [PMID: 24292913]
  9. Adv Physiol Educ. 2022 Sep 1;46(3):365 [PMID: 35648387]
  10. Med Educ. 2010 Nov;44(11):1057-68 [PMID: 20946476]
  11. BMC Med Educ. 2017 Dec 8;17(1):243 [PMID: 29221459]
  12. Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2014 Feb 16;28:5 [PMID: 25250250]
  13. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2018 Jun;17(2):es3 [PMID: 29749840]
  14. Nurs Ethics. 2019 May;26(3):903-913 [PMID: 28946799]
  15. Teach Learn Med. 2020 Aug-Sep;32(4):399-409 [PMID: 32141336]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0clinicalindividualproblem-solvingteam-basedgroup25groupsapproachstudentsapproachesIAGTAGmedicalscorestudyresponsesClinicaleducationcasesmaypresentedresponseobtainedtotal10difference7case-solvingobjectiveApproacheslearningBackgroundcasevignetteswidelyadoptedpedagogicalclosedoptionobjectivitysolvingdemonstratedeffectivenessenhancingstudents'reasoningongoingdebateregardingeffectiveapproach:ObjectiveobservecompareversusMethodsobtainingconsent100randomlyselectedparticipantsdividedtwogroups:n=25comprisingthreesetproblemsrequiringclosed-answer"yes""no""don'tknow"participants'recordedanalyzedevaluateefficacyResults44±11252166p-value=058scoresquestionsConclusionfoundsignificantdifferencesHencetypepatternusednecessaryresearchneededexplorefactorsfindingsfuturestudiesComparingEfficacyIndividualTeam-BasedSolvingCaseVignettescollaborativedecision-makingsizequestionphysiologyproblem-based

Similar Articles

Cited By