Search

Purpose To examine problem-based learning (PBL) students' views on the added value of video cases compared to text-based cases in the pre-clinical phase of undergraduate medical education and on the conditions for productive use of video in tutorial group discussions. Method Participants were 2nd-year students who had completed a PBL programme featuring video cases. Three groups of 6–8 randomly selected students participated in focus-group interviews guided by a moderator using a ‘questioning route’. The interviews were audiotaped, transcribed and analysed. The summary reports were approved by the students. Results According to the students, the video cases enabled them to create realistic mental pictures of disorders, provided integrated pictures of patients as people, which challenged them to elaborate the cases seriously and were more memorable than text-based cases. Cases that students perceived as fostering the productive use of video were neither too directive nor too complete, tailored to students' prior knowledge, short, varied in design and complementary to other materials. The cases should be viewed in a structured, purposeful manner, with cues, instructions and prompts to focus attention on essential issues. Conclusion The video cases were generally perceived as a valuable stimulus for group discussions in PBL. However, productive use depended on specific conditions. Many of the advantages and conditions mentioned are supported by earlier non-empirical claims in the literature or can be explained by theory and empirical studies on symbol systems. Future observational studies should address the effects of specific attributes of video as a medium. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study examined the effect of graphic organizers on the comprehension of a health education brochure text and compared subjective with objective comprehension measures. Graphic organizers are graphical depictions of relations among concepts in a text. Participants read a brochure text about asthma with and without these organizers, and subjective and objective text comprehension was measured. It was found that graphic organizers had effects on four levels of objective comprehension as indicated by open comprehension questions. However, on the subjective comprehension measure using Likert-type scales, the groups with and without graphic organizers did not differ from each other. It is concluded that health education texts could benefit from relatively simple techniques to increase comprehension. Furthermore, in developing health education materials, comprehension should be measured objectively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Family physicians' diagnostic gut feelings have proved to be valuable. But what about patients' gut feelings? Research has shown that patients' gut feelings may contribute to their physicians' clinical reasoning. Dutch medical tribunals consider patients' worry useful for doctors' diagnostic process. However, how general practitioners and other primary care professionals recognize gut feelings of patients and deal with them in their decision making is yet unclear. We aim to explore how primary care professionals perceive patients' gut feelings and use this information in their decision-making., Methods: We interviewed 30 Dutch and Belgian primary care professionals, exploring how they recognize and value patients' gut feelings. We coded all interviews using a descriptive content analysis in an iterative process. Data sufficiency was achieved., Results: Primary care professionals acknowledged gut feelings in their patients, and most participants found them a useful source of information. Patients' gut feelings might alert them to possible hidden problems and might provide quicker insight into patients' perceptions. Primary care professionals listed a whole series of wordings relating to trusting or distrusting the situation or to any changes in normal patterns. A patient's gut feeling was often a reason for the professionals to explore patients' worries and to reconsider their own clinical reasoning., Conclusions: Primary care professionals regularly considered patients' gut feelings useful, as they might contribute to their clinical reasoning and to a deeper understanding of the patient's problem. The next step could be to ask patients themselves about their gut feelings and explore their diagnostic value., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Objectives: The validated Gut Feelings Questionnaire (GFQ) is a 10-item questionnaire based on the definitions of the sense of alarm and the sense of reassurance. The purpose of the GFQ is to determine the presence or absence of gut feelings in the diagnostic reasoning of general practitioners (GPs).The aim was to test the GFQ on GPs, in real practice settings, to check whether any changes were needed to improve feasibility, and to calculate the prevalence of the GPs' sense of alarm and sense of reassurance in three different countries., Setting: Primary care, six participating centres in Belgium, France and the Netherlands., Participants: We performed a think-aloud study with 24 experienced Dutch GPs, GP trainees and medical clerks who filled in the GFQ after diagnosing each of six case vignettes. We then performed a feasibility study in two phases, using a mixed-method approach, with 42 French and Dutch GPs in the first phase and then 10 Belgian, 10 Dutch and 10 French GPs in the second phase. All GPs filled in the GFQ after each of eight consultations with patients presenting new complaints and were subsequently interviewed about the use of the GFQ., Outcome Measures: GPs' experiences on using the GFQ in real practice, more specifically the average time needed for filling in the questionnaire.The prevalence of GPs' sense of alarm and sense of reassurance., Results: The modified version of the GFQ, created without altering the sense of the validated items, was easy to use in daily practice. The prevalence of the GPs' sense of alarm occurred during 23%-31% of the included consultations., Conclusions: After a two-step study and several minor adaptations, the final version of the GFQ proved to be a feasible and practical tool to be used for prospective observational studies in daily practice., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2018. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)