Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Comparison of an e-learning package with lecture-based teaching in the management of supraventricular tachycardia (SVT): a randomised controlled study
  1. Kevin Mohee1,
  2. Hasan N Haboubi2,
  3. Majd Protty3,
  4. Christopher Srinivasan4,
  5. William Townend4,
  6. Clive Weston5
  1. 1 Department of Cardiology, Morriston Hospital, Swansea, UK
  2. 2 Cancer Biomarker Group, Swansea University Medical School, Swansea, UK
  3. 3 Systems Immunity University Research Institute, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
  4. 4 Emergency Department, Hull Royal Infirmary, Hull, UK
  5. 5 Department of Acute Medicine, Hywel Dda Health Board, Carmarthen, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Kevin Mohee, Department of Cardiology, Morriston Hospital, Swansea SA6 6NL, UK; kevin.mohee{at}nhs.net

Abstract

Introduction To compare the impact of an e-learning package with theoretical teaching on the ability of both graduate and undergraduate medical students to learn the management of supraventricular tachycardia.

Methods We conducted a randomised, controlled, study at two Welsh medical schools. Participants were graduate-entry and undergraduate medical students, who were randomised (in a 1:1 ratio) to either 1 hour of training using an e-learning package or an hour of lecture-based teaching. The outcome was a comparison, within each group and between groups, of median scores achieved in assessments of knowledge through completion of preintervention, immediate post intervention and 2 weeks postintervention questionnaires.

Results Of the 97 participants available for randomisation, 47 underwent teaching using the e-learning package and 50 were taught in the lecture group. Median scores were higher in the e-learning package group than the lecture group, though this difference was not statistically significant (4.00 vs 3.00; p=0.08) immediately after intervention. At 2 weeks post intervention, median scores in the e-learning package group were significantly higher than the median scores in the lecture group (4.00 vs 3.00; p=0.002). This was despite a subanalysis of the results demonstrating that subjects in the lecture group reported having seen more cases compared with those in the e-learning group (32 vs 13; p=0.002). Further, there was a significant fall in score over 2 weeks in the group receiving lecture-based teaching, but no such decrease in those using the e-learning package.

Conclusion E-learning seems to be the preferred method of learning and the method that confers longer retention time for both postgraduate and undergraduate medical students.

  • cardiology
  • cardiology
  • accident & emergency medicine
  • medical education & training

Data availability statement

All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Data availability statement

All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Contributors KM, HNH and CW developed the idea and designed the project. KM, MP, CS and WT participated in data collection. HNH participated in data analysis. KM generated the first draft of the paper. HNH and CW reviewed the draft and amended it. All authors approved the final version.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.