Limits...
Individualized feedback during simulated laparoscopic training:a mixed methods study.

Ahlborg L, Weurlander M, Hedman L, Nisel H, Lindqvist PG, Felländer-Tsai L, Enochsson L - Int J Med Educ (2015)

Bottom Line: Instrument path length was shorter in the feedback group (median 3.9 m; IQR: 3.3-4.9) as compared to the control group (median 5.9 m; IQR: 5.0-8.1), p<0.05.Self-efficacy improved in both groups.The next step is to further optimize feedback and to transfer standardized and individualized feedback from the simulated setting to the operating room.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology (CLINTEC), Karolinska Institutet at Karolinska University Hospital, Sweden.

ABSTRACT

Objective: This study aimed to explore the value of individualized feedback on performance, flow and self-efficacy during simulated laparoscopy. Furthermore, we wished to explore attitudes towards feedback and simulator training among medical students.

Methods: Sixteen medical students were included in the study and randomized to laparoscopic simulator training with or without feedback. A teacher provided individualized feedback continuously throughout the procedures to the target group. Validated questionnaires and scales were used to evaluate self-efficacy and flow. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to evaluate differences between groups regarding laparoscopic performance (instrument path length), self-efficacy and flow. Qualitative data was collected by group interviews and interpreted using inductive thematic analyses.

Results: Sixteen students completed the simulator training and questionnaires. Instrument path length was shorter in the feedback group (median 3.9 m; IQR: 3.3-4.9) as compared to the control group (median 5.9 m; IQR: 5.0-8.1), p<0.05. Self-efficacy improved in both groups. Eleven students participated in the focus interviews. Participants in the control group expressed that they had fun, whereas participants in the feedback group were more concentrated on the task and also more anxious. Both groups had high ambitions to succeed and also expressed the importance of getting feedback. The authenticity of the training scenario was important for the learning process.

Conclusions: This study highlights the importance of individualized feedback during simulated laparoscopy training. The next step is to further optimize feedback and to transfer standardized and individualized feedback from the simulated setting to the operating room.

No MeSH data available.


Self-efficacy score, item 3; "I am confident I will succeed in future simulator tasks", comparing males and females before and after training. *p <0.05.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4537795&req=5

f3: Self-efficacy score, item 3; "I am confident I will succeed in future simulator tasks", comparing males and females before and after training. *p <0.05.

Mentions: Flow experience had a median score of 16.4 (range11.0-18.8) in the whole sample. No differences in flow experience or self-efficacy scores were observed between the feedback and control groups. Overall self-efficacy scores improved with training in both groups (Figure 2). Males scored significantly higher than females on self-efficacy item 3:"I am confident I will succeed in future simulator tasks", both before and after training (Figure 3).


Individualized feedback during simulated laparoscopic training:a mixed methods study.

Ahlborg L, Weurlander M, Hedman L, Nisel H, Lindqvist PG, Felländer-Tsai L, Enochsson L - Int J Med Educ (2015)

Self-efficacy score, item 3; "I am confident I will succeed in future simulator tasks", comparing males and females before and after training. *p <0.05.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4537795&req=5

f3: Self-efficacy score, item 3; "I am confident I will succeed in future simulator tasks", comparing males and females before and after training. *p <0.05.
Mentions: Flow experience had a median score of 16.4 (range11.0-18.8) in the whole sample. No differences in flow experience or self-efficacy scores were observed between the feedback and control groups. Overall self-efficacy scores improved with training in both groups (Figure 2). Males scored significantly higher than females on self-efficacy item 3:"I am confident I will succeed in future simulator tasks", both before and after training (Figure 3).

Bottom Line: Instrument path length was shorter in the feedback group (median 3.9 m; IQR: 3.3-4.9) as compared to the control group (median 5.9 m; IQR: 5.0-8.1), p<0.05.Self-efficacy improved in both groups.The next step is to further optimize feedback and to transfer standardized and individualized feedback from the simulated setting to the operating room.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology (CLINTEC), Karolinska Institutet at Karolinska University Hospital, Sweden.

ABSTRACT

Objective: This study aimed to explore the value of individualized feedback on performance, flow and self-efficacy during simulated laparoscopy. Furthermore, we wished to explore attitudes towards feedback and simulator training among medical students.

Methods: Sixteen medical students were included in the study and randomized to laparoscopic simulator training with or without feedback. A teacher provided individualized feedback continuously throughout the procedures to the target group. Validated questionnaires and scales were used to evaluate self-efficacy and flow. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to evaluate differences between groups regarding laparoscopic performance (instrument path length), self-efficacy and flow. Qualitative data was collected by group interviews and interpreted using inductive thematic analyses.

Results: Sixteen students completed the simulator training and questionnaires. Instrument path length was shorter in the feedback group (median 3.9 m; IQR: 3.3-4.9) as compared to the control group (median 5.9 m; IQR: 5.0-8.1), p<0.05. Self-efficacy improved in both groups. Eleven students participated in the focus interviews. Participants in the control group expressed that they had fun, whereas participants in the feedback group were more concentrated on the task and also more anxious. Both groups had high ambitions to succeed and also expressed the importance of getting feedback. The authenticity of the training scenario was important for the learning process.

Conclusions: This study highlights the importance of individualized feedback during simulated laparoscopy training. The next step is to further optimize feedback and to transfer standardized and individualized feedback from the simulated setting to the operating room.

No MeSH data available.