Education, MedicalNCT01286025
Comparing the Effect of Video-cases and Text-cases on Medical Students' Learning in Tutorial
A study testing video case modality and Text case modality in people with Education, Medical and Education, Medical, Undergraduate, run by Harvard University Faculty of Medicine at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
This study is designed to examine how the type of learning case affects the thinking of medical students in tutorial Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 65 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Education, Medical, Education, Medical, Undergraduate, Problem-based Learning
- What is being tested?
- video case modality and Text case modality
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 28 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- Feb 2008to Feb 2009
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 65 years
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- medical student participating in the endocrine and reproductive pathophysiology course at Harvard Medical School
Who cannot join
- None
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: A Randomized Crossover Study to Compare the Critical Thinking of Medical Students When Using Video-based or Written Cases
This study is designed to examine how the type of learning case affects the thinking of medical students in tutorial
Read the detailed description
Tutorials at Harvard Medical School use problem-based learning with written cases. Students work in groups under the supervision of a tutor who guides their exploration of the material. As students progress through the curriculum there is an opportunity to advance the complexity of the material they are presented with. Video-based patient case studies have been shown to improve critical thinking ratios in paediatric medical student problem-based learning exercises, and time spent on data exploration, theory building and theory evaluation in postgraduate residency programs. We hypothesize that video provides a stimulus that improves cognitive processing and critical thinking among medical students, as compared to working from the text-based transcript of the same case.
- Conditions
- Education, Medical, Education, Medical, Undergraduate, Problem-based Learning, Problem Solving, Interactive Tutorial
- Being tested
- video case modality, Text case modality
- Keywords
- medical education, problem-based learning, interactive tutorial
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
video case modalityBehavioural
Patients whose case histories are pathophysiologically illustrative will be recruited, and interviewed on video. Their stories will be edited and divided into sections, and combined with the patient's laboratory, imaging, and pathological reports when appropriate
Text case modalityBehavioural
Patients whose case histories are pathophysiologically illustrative will be recruited, and interviewed on video. Their stories will be edited and divided into sections, and combined with the patient's laboratory, imaging, and pathological reports when appropriate. The transcript of these video-recordings will form the basis of the text-based case presentation modality.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Video modality | Active comparator | Not described Receives: Behavioral: video case modality |
| Text modality | Active comparator | Not described Receives: Behavioral: Text case modality |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Overall ratio of deep to superficial thinking
Depth of thinking will be evaluated using the method of Kamin et al. Transcription of each tutorial will be divided into utterances. Each utterance will be coded for depth of thinking (deep vs. superficial). The ratio of deep to superficial thinking by case modality will be reported.
Measured: Four 90-minute tutorial sessions
Secondary outcomes (3)
Distribution of learning activities
Transcription of each tutorial will be divided into utterances. Each utterance will be coded by learning domain (identification, description, exploration, integration, and application. The distribution of domains by case modality will be reported.
Measured: Four 90-min tutorial sessions
Preferences of students for each case modality
Students will be surveyed regarding their preferences for video- vs. text-based case presentation modality using a Likert-scale
Measured: 5 weeks
Preferences of tutors for each case modality
Tutors will be surveyed regarding their preferences for video- vs. text-based case presentation modality using a Likert-scale
Measured: 5 weeks
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted31 Jan 2011 (estimated)
- Study startFeb 2008
- Primary completionFeb 2009
- Study completionFeb 2009
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Education, MedicalStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Health services research
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Crossover
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 28 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Harvard University Faculty of Medicine
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Investigators
- Graham T McMahon, MD MMSc, Principal investigator, Harvard Medical School (HMS and HSDM)
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01286025
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- M15700-101
- Status last verified
- Jan 2011
- First submitted
- 27 Jan 2011
- Last updated
- 31 Jan 2011
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 31 Jan 2011. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- A Randomized Crossover Study to Compare the Critical Thinking of Medical Students When Using Video-based or Written Cases
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01286025
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- M15700-101
- Conditions
- Education, Medical, Education, Medical, Undergraduate, Problem-based Learning, Problem Solving, Interactive Tutorial
- Keywords
- medical education, problem-based learning, interactive tutorial
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 28 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Harvard University Faculty of MedicineUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- Feb 2008
- Primary completion
- Feb 2009 (actual)
- Study completion
- Feb 2009 (actual)
- First posted
- 31 Jan 2011 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
This study is designed to examine how the type of learning case affects the thinking of medical students in tutorial
Detailed description
Tutorials at Harvard Medical School use problem-based learning with written cases. Students work in groups under the supervision of a tutor who guides their exploration of the material. As students progress through the curriculum there is an opportunity to advance the complexity of the material they are presented with. Video-based patient case studies have been shown to improve critical thinking ratios in paediatric medical student problem-based learning exercises, and time spent on data exploration, theory building and theory evaluation in postgraduate residency programs. We hypothesize that video provides a stimulus that improves cognitive processing and critical thinking among medical students, as compared to working from the text-based transcript of the same case.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Health services research
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Crossover
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Video modality | Active comparator | Behavioral: video case modality |
| Text modality | Active comparator | Behavioral: Text case modality |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 65 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- medical student participating in the endocrine and reproductive pathophysiology course at Harvard Medical School
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- None
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| video case modalityPatients whose case histories are pathophysiologically illustrative will be recruited, and interviewed on video. Their stories will be edited and divided into sections, and combined with the patient's laboratory, imaging, and pathological reports when appropriate | Behavioural | Video modality |
| Text case modalityPatients whose case histories are pathophysiologically illustrative will be recruited, and interviewed on video. Their stories will be edited and divided into sections, and combined with the patient's laboratory, imaging, and pathological reports when appropriate. The transcript of these video-recordings will form the basis of the text-based case presentation modality. | Behavioural | Text modality |
Primary outcome
Overall ratio of deep to superficial thinking
Time frame: Four 90-minute tutorial sessions
Depth of thinking will be evaluated using the method of Kamin et al. Transcription of each tutorial will be divided into utterances. Each utterance will be coded for depth of thinking (deep vs. superficial). The ratio of deep to superficial thinking by case modality will be reported.
3 secondary outcomes
Distribution of learning activities
Time frame: Four 90-min tutorial sessions
Preferences of students for each case modality
Time frame: 5 weeks
Preferences of tutors for each case modality
Time frame: 5 weeks
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 31 Jan 2011.
Related trials for Education, Medical
Recruiting
Linking Education, Produce Provision, and Community Referrals to Improve Diabetes Care (LINK)
Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Nutrition Poor
Not yet recruiting
Title of Study: Anesthesiologists' Learning Curves for Ultrasound Assessment of Difficult Airway
Airway Ultrasound, Difficult Airway Management
Not yet recruiting
Comparing the Efficacy of a Conversational Agent (QuitBot) Versus Standard Health Education on Smoking Cessation Among Medical Students in Cairo University
Conversational Agent, Smoking Cessation
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Federated Learning in Renal Tumor Model
Renal Tumors
Not yet recruiting
Generative AI-Assisted Personalized Feedback for Laparoscopic Skill Learning in Medical Undergraduates
Medical Education
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Graham T McMahon, MD MMSc principal investigator
Harvard Medical School (HMS and HSDM)
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing video case modality and Text case modality in people with Education, Medical and Education, Medical, Undergraduate, run by Harvard University Faculty of Medicine at 1 site in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 31 Jan 2011. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Overall ratio of deep to superficial thinking (time frame: Four 90-minute tutorial sessions). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 31 Jan 2011.