LearningNCT05547009
Blended Learning Versus Face-to-face Learning in Cardiac Physiotherapy Students
A study testing Blended-learning group and Face-to-face learning group in people with Learning and Students, run by University of Valencia at 1 site in Spain.
Trial summary
Blended learning (BL) combines both face-to-face learning (FL) and online learning. There is no evidence about the effects of a BL program in cardiac physiotherapy education. This study aimed at comparing the effectiveness of a BL program versus a FL program in Physiotherapy Degree students on knowledge, competencies… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and olderHealthy volunteers can take part
- What is being tested?
- Blended-learning group and Face-to-face learning group
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 100 participants
- Where
- 1 siteSpain
- Study dates
- 12 Sep 2020to 30 Mar 2021
- 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 years and older
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Being a student of Degree in Physiotherapy at the University of Valencia.
- Willing to participate
Who cannot join
- Previous cardiac physiotherapy training.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: A Randomized Trial Comparing Blended Learning Versus Face-to-face Learning in Cardiac Physiotherapy Students
Blended learning (BL) combines both face-to-face learning (FL) and online learning. There is no evidence about the effects of a BL program in cardiac physiotherapy education. This study aimed at comparing the effectiveness of a BL program versus a FL program in Physiotherapy Degree students on knowledge, competencies, satisfaction, perceptions, usability, BL acceptance, attitudes and behaviours. An assessor-blinded randomized trial was performed.
Read the detailed description
Blended learning (BL) combines both face-to-face learning (FL) and online learning. There is no evidence about the effects of a BL program in cardiac physiotherapy education. This study aimed at comparing the effectiveness of a BL program versus a FL program in Physiotherapy Degree students on knowledge, competencies, satisfaction, perceptions, usability, BL acceptance, attitudes and behaviours. An assessor-blinded randomized trial was performed. A total of 100 students were randomly allocated to a BL group (BLG, n=48), or a FL group (FLG, n=52). The BLG received face-to-face classes plus online re-sources (online syllabus, Moodle, scientific-based videos and websites, activities, glossary, and apps). The FLG received face-to-face classes and hardcopy resources (hardcopy syl-labus, scientific-based information, activities, and glossary). Knowledge, ethical and gen-der competencies, satisfaction, and perceptions were assessed pre- and post-intervention. Usability, BL acceptance, attitudes and behaviours were assessed post-intervention.
- Being tested
- Blended-learning group, Face-to-face learning group
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Blended-learning groupOther
The BL program included paced, asynchronous online learning modules and scheduled online activities with strategic face-to-face lectures. Resources: 1) Moodle platform: it was used as a virtual communication platform. 2) Online syllabus: an online specific syllabus about cardiac physiotherapy was developed. 3) Online glossary: an online glossary performed by the teacher was available for the students. 4) Online videos: several videos of international and national scientific societies were provided. 5) Websites: several links to websites of international and national scientific societies such as the European Society of Cardiology, the American Heart Association or the World Heart Federation were used. 6) Online activities: five four-question online activities were created. 7) Apps, using the app Ariadna to prevent from cardiovascular risk and look for defibrillators around; 8) Online tutorship, through an online communication platform (Blackboard Collaborate).
Face-to-face learning groupOther
The FLG included: 1) Face-to-face classes; 2) Hardcopy syllabus; 3) Hardcopy scien-tific societies information; 4) Face-to-face activities: four questions per each theme; 5) Hardcopy glossary; and 6) Face-to-face tutorships. In all cases, the content of the infor-mation provided was the same as the information provided to the BLG, although in a face-to-face design.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Blended-learning group | Experimental | The BL program included paced, asynchronous online learning modules and scheduled online activities with strategic face-to-face lectures. Receives: Other: Blended-learning group |
| Face-to-face learning group | Active comparator | Face-to-face classes. Receives: Other: Face-to-face learning group |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Knowledge acquisition
Multiple-choice test. Score from 0 to 10 .The higher the score, the greater the knowledge.
Measured: 5 minutes
Secondary outcomes (6)
Cross-curricular ethical and gender competencies
Higher Education, Transversal Skills and Gender Questionnaire. From 1 to 42. The higher the score, the more ethical and gender competencies are acquired.
Measured: 5 minute
Satisfaction with the program
6-item Yang's Satisfaction Questionnaire. From 1 to 24. The higher the score, the greater the satisfaction with the program.
Measured: 5 minute
Perceptions and evaluation of the program
8-item Kavadella's Perceptions Questionnaire. From 1 to 40 points. The higher the score, the better the perceptions and evaluation of the program.
Measured: 5 minutes
Usability of the virtual platform
System Usability Scale. The total SUS score (0 to 100) can be interpreted as not acceptable (0-64), acceptable (65 to 84), or excellent (85 to 100)
Measured: 5 minutes
Blended-learning acceptance
4-item Blended Learning Acceptance Scale. From 1 to 28 points. The higher the score, the greater the acceptance.
Measured: 5 minutes
Students' attitudes towards e-learning and e-learning behaviour
Questionnaire comprising 3 items (how much Moodle helped you, willingness of using Moodle, interest in e-learning). The higher score, the greater attitudes towards e-learning and e-learning behaviour.
Measured: 5 minutes
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted21 Sep 2022
- Study start12 Sep 2020
- Primary completion30 Mar 2021
- Study completion30 Mar 2021
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (1)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for LearningStudies 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
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Model description
- An assessor-blinded two-armed randomized trial
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 100 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Valencia
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Elena Marques-Sule, University of Valencia
- Investigators
- Elena Marqués Sulé, Dra, Principal investigator, Univeristy of Valencia
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05547009
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- IE1576047
- Status last verified
- Sep 2022
- First submitted
- 15 Sep 2022
- Last updated
- 22 Sep 2022
- Results posted
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
Publications
Ng L, Seow KC, MacDonald L, Correia C, Reubenson A, Gardner P, Spence AL, Bunzli S, De Oliveira BIR. eLearning in Physical Therapy: Lessons Learned From Transitioning a Professional Education Program to Full eLearning During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Phys Ther. 2021 Apr 4;101(4):pzab082. doi: 10.1093/ptj/pzab082.
PubMed 33751113
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 22 Sep 2022. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- A Randomized Trial Comparing Blended Learning Versus Face-to-face Learning in Cardiac Physiotherapy Students
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05547009
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- IE1576047
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 100 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of ValenciaUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 12 Sep 2020 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 30 Mar 2021 (actual)
- Study completion
- 30 Mar 2021 (actual)
- First posted
- 21 Sep 2022 (actual)
- 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.
Blended learning (BL) combines both face-to-face learning (FL) and online learning. There is no evidence about the effects of a BL program in cardiac physiotherapy education. This study aimed at comparing the effectiveness of a BL program versus a FL program in Physiotherapy Degree students on knowledge, competencies, satisfaction, perceptions, usability, BL acceptance, attitudes and behaviours. An assessor-blinded randomized trial was performed.
Detailed description
Blended learning (BL) combines both face-to-face learning (FL) and online learning. There is no evidence about the effects of a BL program in cardiac physiotherapy education. This study aimed at comparing the effectiveness of a BL program versus a FL program in Physiotherapy Degree students on knowledge, competencies, satisfaction, perceptions, usability, BL acceptance, attitudes and behaviours. An assessor-blinded randomized trial was performed. A total of 100 students were randomly allocated to a BL group (BLG, n=48), or a FL group (FLG, n=52). The BLG received face-to-face classes plus online re-sources (online syllabus, Moodle, scientific-based videos and websites, activities, glossary, and apps). The FLG received face-to-face classes and hardcopy resources (hardcopy syl-labus, scientific-based information, activities, and glossary). Knowledge, ethical and gen-der competencies, satisfaction, and perceptions were assessed pre- and post-intervention. Usability, BL acceptance, attitudes and behaviours were assessed post-intervention.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- An assessor-blinded two-armed randomized trial
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Blended-learning group | Experimental | Other: Blended-learning groupThe BL program included paced, asynchronous online learning modules and scheduled online activities with strategic face-to-face lectures. |
| Face-to-face learning group | Active comparator | Other: Face-to-face learning groupFace-to-face classes. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Being a student of Degree in Physiotherapy at the University of Valencia.
- Willing to participate
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Previous cardiac physiotherapy training.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Blended-learning groupThe BL program included paced, asynchronous online learning modules and scheduled online activities with strategic face-to-face lectures. Resources: 1) Moodle platform: it was used as a virtual communication platform. 2) Online syllabus: an online specific syllabus about cardiac physiotherapy was developed. 3) Online glossary: an online glossary performed by the teacher was available for the students. 4) Online videos: several videos of international and national scientific societies were provided. 5) Websites: several links to websites of international and national scientific societies such as the European Society of Cardiology, the American Heart Association or the World Heart Federation were used. 6) Online activities: five four-question online activities were created. 7) Apps, using the app Ariadna to prevent from cardiovascular risk and look for defibrillators around; 8) Online tutorship, through an online communication platform (Blackboard Collaborate). | Other | Blended-learning group |
| Face-to-face learning groupThe FLG included: 1) Face-to-face classes; 2) Hardcopy syllabus; 3) Hardcopy scien-tific societies information; 4) Face-to-face activities: four questions per each theme; 5) Hardcopy glossary; and 6) Face-to-face tutorships. In all cases, the content of the infor-mation provided was the same as the information provided to the BLG, although in a face-to-face design. | Other | Face-to-face learning group |
Primary outcome
Knowledge acquisition
Time frame: 5 minutes
Multiple-choice test. Score from 0 to 10 .The higher the score, the greater the knowledge.
6 secondary outcomes
Cross-curricular ethical and gender competencies
Time frame: 5 minute
Satisfaction with the program
Time frame: 5 minute
Perceptions and evaluation of the program
Time frame: 5 minutes
Usability of the virtual platform
Time frame: 5 minutes
Blended-learning acceptance
Time frame: 5 minutes
Students' attitudes towards e-learning and e-learning behaviour
Time frame: 5 minutes
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 22 Sep 2022.
- Background: PubMed 33751113Ng L, Seow KC, MacDonald L, Correia C, Reubenson A, Gardner P, Spence AL, Bunzli S, De Oliveira BIR. eLearning in Physical Therapy: Lessons Learned From Transitioning a Professional Education Program to Full eLearning During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Phys Ther. 2021 Apr 4;101(4):pzab082. doi: 10.1093/ptj/pzab082.
- Blended Learning: The impact of blackboard formative assessment on the final marks and students' perception of its effectivenessLink provided by the sponsor.
- Blended learning in health education: three case studiesLink provided by the sponsor.
Related trials for Learning
Active, not recruitingObservational study
A Study to Learn About the Effectiveness of Etrasimod in People With Ulcerative Colitis
Colitis, Ulcerative
Recruiting
Automated Language Analysis in Neurodegenerative Diseases: Application of Artificial Intelligence Models
Alzheimer's Disease (AD), Frontotemporal Dementia (FTD)
RecruitingPhase 3
A Study to Learn About the Study Medicine Called Tilrekimig in People With Severe Asthma
Asthma
Active, not recruitingPhase 1
A Study to Learn How Different Amounts of the Study Medicine Called PF-07985631 Are Tolerated and Act in the Body of Healthy Adults
Healthy
Not yet recruiting
Building Resilience Through Anxiety Virtual Education in PICU Survivors
Critical Illness Recovery, Mental Health
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.
Elena Marqués Sulé, Dra principal investigator
Univeristy of Valencia
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Blended-learning group and Face-to-face learning group in people with Learning and Students, run by University of Valencia at 1 site in Spain.
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 22 Sep 2022. 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 Spain. 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?
Knowledge acquisition (time frame: 5 minutes). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT05547009, which also lists 1 linked publication.
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 22 Sep 2022.