MATERIALS AND METHODS: A randomised controlled trial (RCT) study involving 111 undergraduate medical students was conducted where the competency of skills was assessed by objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) in the first, fourth and seventh/eighth weeks. A cohort of 12-14 students was enrolled for each session. The randomisation of the participants into control (VAL-based teaching) and intervention (HFS-based teaching) groups was achieved by implementing the computer-based random sequence generation method. VAL-based teaching module was a fully interactive face-to-face teaching session where a prerecorded video clip was used. The video clip detailed the diagnosis of tension pneumothorax in an acute medical emergency and its management by performing needle decompression on a high-fidelity patient simulator (METIman). HFS-based teaching module was delivered as a fully interactive hands-on training session conducted on the same METIman to demonstrate the diagnosis of tension pneumothorax in an acute medical emergency and its management by performing needle decompression. OSCE scores were compared as the denominator of learning (enhancement and retention of skills) between two groups who underwent training with either VAL-based or HFS-based teachings. The OSCE assessments were used to evaluate the participants' performance as a group. These scores were used to compare the enhancement and medium-term retention of skills between the groups. The outcome was measured with the mean and standard deviation (SD) for the total OSCE scores for skills assessments. We used General Linear Model two-way mixed ANOVA to ascertain the difference of OSCE marks over assessment time points between the control and the intervention groups. ANCOVA and two-way mixed ANOVA were used to calculate the effect size and the partial Eta squared. p value less than 0.05 was taken to be statistically significant.
RESULTS: The two-way mixed ANOVA showed no statistically significant difference in mean OSCE scores between intervention and control groups (p=0.890), although the mean score of the intervention group was better than the control group.
CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrated that HFS was not significantly effective over VAL-based education in enhancing skills and consolidating retention among undergraduate medical students. Further research is needed to determine its suitability for inclusion in the course curriculum considering the cost-effectiveness of implementing HFS that may supplement traditional teaching methods.
Methodology: We used a retrospective, matched before and after study design to prevent biased levels of effort by students conducting the home visits over two years. Information was obtained through reports written by IMU students. Convenient sampling was used to select outpatients undergoing treatment 'as usual' from a health clinic and were subsequently matched as controls.
Results: There was a significant decrease in the mean HbA1c among 57 patients with diabetes who were CFCS subjects [from 8.4% (68 mmol/mol) to 7.3% (57 mmol/mol) p<0.001], while the mean HbA1c levels among 107 matched control subjects rose significantly from 7.9% (63 mmol/mol) to 8.3% (67 mmol/mol) (p=0.019) over a similar period. The two groups were controlled for most biological and socioeconomic variables except for comorbidities, diabetic complications and medication dose changes between groups.
Conclusion: Behavioural intervention in the form of home visits conducted by medical students is an effective tool with a dual purpose, first as a student educational initiative, and second as a strategy to improve outcomes for patients with diabetes.