Advertisement

Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 23, Issue 7, pp 973–978 | Cite as

Interactive Spaced-Education to Teach the Physical Examination: A Randomized Controlled Trial

  • B. Price KerfootEmail author
  • Elizabeth G. Armstrong
  • Patricia N. O’Sullivan
Original Article

Abstract

Background

Several studies have documented that physical examination knowledge and skills are limited among medical trainees.

Objectives

The objective of the study is to investigate the efficacy and acceptability of a novel online educational methodology termed ‘interactive spaced-education’ (ISE) as a method to teach the physical examination.

Design

The design of the study is randomized controlled trial.

Participants

All 170 second-year students in the physical examination course at Harvard Medical School were eligible to enroll.

Measurements

Spaced-education items (questions and explanations) were developed on core physical examination topics and were content-validated by two experts. Based on pilot-test data, 36 items were selected for inclusion. Students were randomized to start the 18-week program in November 2006 or 12 weeks later. Students were sent 6 spaced-education e-mails each week for 6 weeks (cycle 1) which were then repeated in two subsequent 6-week cycles (cycles 2 and 3). Students submitted answers to the questions online and received immediate feedback. An online end-of-program survey was administered.

Results

One-hundred twenty students enrolled in the trial. Cycles 1, 2, and 3 were completed by 88%, 76%, and 71% of students, respectively. Under an intent-to-treat analysis, cycle 3 scores for cohort A students [mean 74.0 (SD 13.5)] were significantly higher than cycle 1 scores for cohort B students [controls; mean 59.0 (SD 10.5); P < .001], corresponding to a Cohen’s effect size of 1.43. Eighty-five percent of participants (102 of 120) recommended the ISE program for students the following year.

Conclusions

ISE can generate significant improvements in knowledge of the physical examination and is very well-accepted by students.

KEY WORDS

educational technology medical education medical students physical examination 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Ronald Rouse, Jason Alvarez, and David Bozzi of the Harvard Medical School Center for Educational Technology for the development of the ISE online delivery platform utilized in this trial; Sarah Grudberg and Zaldy Tan for content-validation of the spaced-education items; Arlene Moniz and Karin Vander Schaaf at Harvard Medical International for administrative support; Lippincott Williams & Wilkins for use of images from Bates’ Guide to Physical Examination and History Taking (9th Edition) by L.S. Bickley & P.G. Szilagyi; and William Taylor and the Patient–Doctor 2 course faculty for their support of this project.

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position and policy of the United States Federal Government or the Department of Veterans Affairs. No official endorsement should be inferred.

Conflict of Interest

None disclosed.

Funding/Support

This study was supported by Harvard Medical International and the Harvard University Provost's Fund for Innovation in Instructional Technology.

Financial Disclosures

None of the authors have relevant financial interests to disclose.

Author Contributions

Dr Kerfoot had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Conception and design: Kerfoot, O’Sullivan

Acquisition of data: Kerfoot

Analysis and interpretation of data: Kerfoot

Drafting of the manuscript: Kerfoot

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Armstrong, O’Sullivan

Statistical analysis: Kerfoot

Obtaining funding: Armstrong

Administrative, technical, or material support: Armstrong

Supervision: Armstrong

Ethical Approval to Perform the Study

The study protocol was approved by the institutional review board at Harvard Medical School.

References

  1. 1.
    Jauhar S. The demise of the physical exam. N Engl J Med. 2006;354(6)548–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mangione S, Nieman LZ. Cardiac auscultatory skills of internal medicine and family practice trainees. A comparison of diagnostic proficiency. Jama. 1997;278(9)717–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    St Clair EW, Oddone EZ, Waugh RA, Corey GR, Feussner JR. Assessing housestaff diagnostic skills using a cardiology patient simulator. Ann Intern Med. 1992;117(9)751–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Marcus GM, Vessey J, Jordan MV, et al. Relationship between accurate auscultation of a clinically useful third heart sound and level of experience. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(6)617–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vukanovic-Criley JM, Criley S, Warde CM, et al. Competency in cardiac examination skills in medical students, trainees, physicians, and faculty: a multicenter study. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(6)610–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Glenberg AM, Lehmann TS. Spacing repetitions over 1 week. Mem Cogn. 1980;8(6)528–38.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Toppino TC, Kasserman JE, Mracek WA. The effect of spacing repetitions on the recognition memory of young children and adults. J Exp Child Psychol. 1991;51(1)123–38.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Landauer TK, Bjork RA. Optimum rehearsal patterns and name learnin. In: Morris PE, Sykes RN, eds. Practical Aspects of Memory. New York: Academic Press; 1978:625–32.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Moulton CA, Dubrowski A, Macrae H, Graham B, Grober E, Reznick R. Teaching surgical skills: what kind of practice makes perfect?: a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Surg. 2006;244(3)400–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sisti HM, Glass AL, Shors TJ. Neurogenesis and the spacing effect: learning over time enhances memory and the survival of new neurons. Learn Mem. 2007;14(5)368–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kerfoot BP, Baker HE, Koch MO, Connelly D, Joseph DB, Ritchey ML. Randomized, controlled trial of spaced education to urology residents in the United States and Canada. J Urol. 2007;177(4)1481–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Spitzer HF. Studies in retention. J Exp Psychol. 1939;30(9)641–56.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gates AI. Recitation as a factor in memorizing. Arch Psychol. 1917;6(40)1–102.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Roediger HL, Karpicke JD. Test-enhanced learning: taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychol Sci. 2006;17(3)249–55.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kerfoot BP, DeWolf WC, Masser BA, Church PA, Federman DD. Spaced education improves the retention of clinical knowledge by medical students: a randomised controlled trial. Med Educ. 2007;41(1)23–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences (2nd edition). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1988.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Maxwell SE, Delaney HD. Designing experiments and analyzing data: A model comparison approach. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth; 1990.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kerfoot BP, Conlin PR, Travison T, McMahon GT. Web-based education in systems-based practice: a randomized trial. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(4)361–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Skinner BF. The shame of American education. Am Psychol. 1984:947–54.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. Price Kerfoot
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • Elizabeth G. Armstrong
    • 2
    • 3
  • Patricia N. O’Sullivan
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Veterans Affairs Boston Healthcare SystemBostonUSA
  2. 2.Harvard Medical InternationalBostonUSA
  3. 3.Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA
  4. 4.Hebrew Rehabilitation CenterBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations