HealthyNCT02400606
The Effect of Constructing Virtual Patient Cases
A study testing Constructing VP cases and Solving VP cases in people with Healthy, run by Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet.
Trial summary
The aim of the study was to explore the effect of actively constructing Virtual patient (VP) cases compared with solving VP cases using 'Web-SP', Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden on knowledge gains and skills transfer in a group of pre-clerkship medical students. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Any ageHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Healthy
- What is being tested?
- Constructing VP cases and Solving VP cases
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 39 participants
- Where
- No sites listed yet
- Study dates
- Jan 2013to May 2013
- 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 Any age
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- fourth-year medical students, University of Copenhagen
- pre-study participation in the mandatory patient encounter skills course
Who cannot join
- medical students who had taken the three pre-clerkship years at other universities, because of curriculum discrepancies
About this study
Official title: The Effect of Constructing Versus Solving Virtual Patient Cases on Transfer of Learning: A Randomized Trial
The aim of the study was to explore the effect of actively constructing Virtual patient (VP) cases compared with solving VP cases using 'Web-SP', Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden on knowledge gains and skills transfer in a group of pre-clerkship medical students.
Read the detailed description
Solving VP cases is associated with large improvements in learning but its effectiveness is dependent on active student involvement. Constructing VP cases rather than solving them may engage students more actively in encoding new information and integrating it with previous knowledge.
Fourth-year medical students were included and randomized to constructing (intervention) or solving (control) four cardiopulmonary VP cases. The participants were presented with a short case overview. The control group solved the cases, whereas the intervention group also received the final diagnosis and had to complete the history, physical findings, and lab results. After a week, participants completed a transfer test involving two standardized patients presenting a respiratory case and a cardiology case, respectively. Performances were video-recorded and subsequently assessed by two blinded raters using the Reporter-Interpreter- Manager-Educator (RIME) framework. Knowledge gains were assessed using a pre- and post-test of a 95-item Multiple-Response-Questionnaire (MRQ).
- Conditions
- Healthy
- Being tested
- Constructing VP cases, Solving VP cases
- Keywords
- constructing VPs, knowledge and skills transfer
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Constructing VP casesOther
The participants were presented with a short case overview. The control group solved the cases, whereas the intervention group also received the final diagnosis and had to complete the history, physical findings, and lab results. After a week, participants completed a transfer test involving two standardized patients presenting a respiratory case and a cardiology case, respectively. Performances were video-recorded and subsequently assessed by two blinded raters using the Reporter-Interpreter- Manager-Educator (RIME) framework. Knowledge gains were assessed using a pre- and post-test of a 95-item Multiple-Response-Questionnaire (MRQ).
Solving VP casesOther
See above
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Intervention | Experimental | The intervention group were presented with a short case overview introducing four cardiopulmonary VP cases as well as the final diagnosis and had to complete the history, physical findings, and lab results, i.e. constructing VP cases. Receives: Other: Constructing VP cases |
| Control | Active comparator | The participants were presented with a short case overview introducing four cardiopulmonary VP cases to be solved, i.e. solving VP cases. Receives: Other: Solving VP cases |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Evaluation of the medical students' management of a simulated patient encounter using a RIME-structured scoring form
The scoring form includes assessment on the roles Reporter, Interpreter, Manager and Educators and has been validated for patient encounters like described below. The requirements for the RIME elements have been defined in with a cardiology professor and a consultant respiratory physician.
The medical students are exposed to two encounters with simulated patients after working with the virtual patients on their own. The students will obtain history and perform physical examination from the simulated patient for 15 minutes. The will be provided a journal form that can be quickly filled in, the patient encounter is video recorded. After this they have 20 minutes to write the journal in an electronic format.
The video recorded patient encounter and the journal will be assessed by two physicians who have experience in rating medical students performance with the scoring form, the raters are blinded for if the students belong to the intervention arm of the study or not.
Measured: After working with the virtual patient cases for one week +/- 3 days
Secondary outcomes (1)
Multiple Choice/Answers Questionnaire
A delta value for the medical students' knowledge of respiratory medicine and cardiology after working with the virtual patients will be obtained. The students have been taught respiratory medicine, but not cardiology. Half the virtual patient cases the students have been working with are on respiratory medicine and the other half are on cardiology.
The questionnaire has been checked by a cardiology professor and a consultant respiratory physician to ensure validity.
Measured: When entering the study and after working with the virtual patient cases for one week +/- 3 days
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted27 Mar 2015 (estimated)
- Study startJan 2013
- Primary completionFeb 2013
- Study completionMay 2013
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for HealthyStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Copenhagen University Hospital, RigshospitaletThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- 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
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 39 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- University of Copenhagen, Centre for Clinical Education
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Rikke Malene H. G. Jepsen, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet
- Investigators
- Charlotte Ringsted, MD MHPE PHD, Study director, Centre for Clinical Education
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02400606
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- H-1-2013-FSP-6
- Status last verified
- Mar 2015
- First submitted
- 17 Mar 2015
- Last updated
- 27 Mar 2015
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 27 Mar 2015. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- The Effect of Constructing Versus Solving Virtual Patient Cases on Transfer of Learning: A Randomized Trial
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02400606
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- H-1-2013-FSP-6
- Conditions
- Healthy
- Keywords
- constructing VPs, knowledge and skills transfer
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 39 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Copenhagen University Hospital, RigshospitaletUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- University of Copenhagen, Centre for Clinical Education
- Study start
- Jan 2013
- Primary completion
- Feb 2013 (actual)
- Study completion
- May 2013 (actual)
- First posted
- 27 Mar 2015 (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.
The aim of the study was to explore the effect of actively constructing Virtual patient (VP) cases compared with solving VP cases using 'Web-SP', Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden on knowledge gains and skills transfer in a group of pre-clerkship medical students.
Detailed description
Solving VP cases is associated with large improvements in learning but its effectiveness is dependent on active student involvement. Constructing VP cases rather than solving them may engage students more actively in encoding new information and integrating it with previous knowledge.
Fourth-year medical students were included and randomized to constructing (intervention) or solving (control) four cardiopulmonary VP cases. The participants were presented with a short case overview. The control group solved the cases, whereas the intervention group also received the final diagnosis and had to complete the history, physical findings, and lab results. After a week, participants completed a transfer test involving two standardized patients presenting a respiratory case and a cardiology case, respectively. Performances were video-recorded and subsequently assessed by two blinded raters using the Reporter-Interpreter- Manager-Educator (RIME) framework. Knowledge gains were assessed using a pre- and post-test of a 95-item Multiple-Response-Questionnaire (MRQ).
Study design
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Intervention | Experimental | Other: Constructing VP casesThe intervention group were presented with a short case overview introducing four cardiopulmonary VP cases as well as the final diagnosis and had to complete the history, physical findings, and lab results, i.e. constructing VP cases. |
| Control | Active comparator | Other: Solving VP casesThe participants were presented with a short case overview introducing four cardiopulmonary VP cases to be solved, i.e. solving VP cases. |
Who may qualify
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (2 listed)
- fourth-year medical students, University of Copenhagen
- pre-study participation in the mandatory patient encounter skills course
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- medical students who had taken the three pre-clerkship years at other universities, because of curriculum discrepancies
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Constructing VP casesThe participants were presented with a short case overview. The control group solved the cases, whereas the intervention group also received the final diagnosis and had to complete the history, physical findings, and lab results. After a week, participants completed a transfer test involving two standardized patients presenting a respiratory case and a cardiology case, respectively. Performances were video-recorded and subsequently assessed by two blinded raters using the Reporter-Interpreter- Manager-Educator (RIME) framework. Knowledge gains were assessed using a pre- and post-test of a 95-item Multiple-Response-Questionnaire (MRQ). | Other | Intervention |
| Solving VP casesSee above | Other | Control |
Primary outcome
Evaluation of the medical students' management of a simulated patient encounter using a RIME-structured scoring form
Time frame: After working with the virtual patient cases for one week +/- 3 days
The scoring form includes assessment on the roles Reporter, Interpreter, Manager and Educators and has been validated for patient encounters like described below. The requirements for the RIME elements have been defined in with a cardiology professor and a consultant respiratory physician. The medical students are exposed to two encounters with simulated patients after working with the virtual patients on their own. The students will obtain history and perform physical examination from the simulated patient for 15 minutes. The will be provided a journal form that can be quickly filled in, the patient encounter is video recorded. After this they have 20 minutes to write the journal in an electronic format. The video recorded patient encounter and the journal will be assessed by two physicians who have experience in rating medical students performance with the scoring form, the raters are blinded for if the students belong to the intervention arm of the study or not.
1 secondary outcome
Multiple Choice/Answers Questionnaire
Time frame: When entering the study and after working with the virtual patient cases for one week +/- 3 days
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 27 Mar 2015.
Related trials for Healthy
Recruiting
Trained vs. Untrained: Lower Extremity Pressure Changes
Trained Athletes, Untrained
Not yet recruitingPhase 1
Comparison of Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Characteristics and Safety of GZR101-80 Injection With Separately Injected, Simultaneous Doses of GZR33 Injection and Insulin Aspart
Healthy Participants
Active, not recruitingPhase 2
Effect of Equol Supplementation on Arterial Stiffness and Cognition in Healthy Volunteers
Arterial Stiffness, White Matter Lesions
Enrolling by invitationObservational study
Screening for Hematology Branch Protocols
Hematologic Disease and Disorders, Donors
RecruitingPhase 1
A Study of Single and Multiple Subcutaneous or Intravenous Doses of ADX-001 in Healthy Adults to Assess Safety, Effects, and Immune Response
Healthy
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.
Charlotte Ringsted, MD MHPE PHD study director
Centre for Clinical Education
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Constructing VP cases and Solving VP cases in people with Healthy, run by Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet.
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 2 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 27 Mar 2015. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
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?
Evaluation of the medical students' management of a simulated patient encounter using a RIME-structured scoring form (time frame: After working with the virtual patient cases for one week +/- 3 days). 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 27 Mar 2015.