1. E-learning versus face-to-face training: Comparison of two learning methods for Lyme borreliosis.
- Author
-
Gaudin M, Tanguy G, Plagne M, Saussac A, Hansmann Y, Jaulhac B, Kelly M, Ouchchane L, and Lesens O
- Subjects
- Clinical Competence, Humans, Learning, Computer-Assisted Instruction, Internship and Residency, Lyme Disease diagnosis
- Abstract
Objectives: To compare two learning methods for Lyme disease (e-learning versus face-to-face training) to assess knowledge and know-how., Methods: The study population was volunteer general medicine residents and family physicians (FP). Face-to-face training on Lyme disease was offered to each group. E-learning training was then offered to those who had not attended the face-to-face training. Theoretical knowledge was assessed by an identical pre- and post-test questionnaire and know-how by a script concordance test., Results: Seventy learners (47 FPs and 23 general medicine residents) were included in the face-to-face training group and 61 (33 FPs and 28 general medicine residents) in the e-learning group. The pre- and post-test scores were significantly improved in the FP group (difference of 29.3±1.9 [P<0.0001] out of 100) as well as in the general medicine resident group (difference of 38.2±2.7 [P<0.0001] out of 100). E-learning was more effective than face-to-face training, particularly among general medicine residents (progression of mean difference of 44.3±3.4/100 vs. 30.9±4.0/100; P=0.0138) and to a lesser extent among FPs (progression of 25.3±2.3/100 vs. 31.9±2.7/100; P=0.0757). Forty-six script concordance tests were completed by FPs and 20 by general medicine residents. Script concordance test results did not seem significant between the subgroups., Conclusions: E-learning seems to be a good alternative to face-to-face training for Lyme disease. It seems to be more effective than face-to-face training for the acquisition of theoretical knowledge. The script concordance test evaluation of know-how did not show any difference between the two learning methods., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)
- Published
- 2022
- Full Text
- View/download PDF