Mi SciELO
Servicios Personalizados
Revista
Articulo
Indicadores
- Citado por SciELO
- Accesos
Links relacionados
- Citado por Google
- Similares en SciELO
- Similares en Google
Compartir
FEM: Revista de la Fundación Educación Médica
versión On-line ISSN 2014-9840versión impresa ISSN 2014-9832
Resumen
AGUDELO, Sergio I. et al. Randomized clinical trial to compare the traditional teaching method and the simulated-scenario teaching method in the acquisition of skills for the identification of acute respiratory disease signs in paediatric patients. FEM (Ed. impresa) [online]. 2015, vol.18, n.4, pp.269-274. ISSN 2014-9840. https://dx.doi.org/10.4321/S2014-98322015000500008.
Introduction. The acute respiratory infection is a public health problem in children under 5 years of age. The early detection and identification of its signs reduces the mortality rates in these age groups and is an objective in medical education. Aim. To compare the traditional teaching method with the simulated-scenario teaching method in the acquisition of skills necessary to recognize respiratory distress in children between 2 months and 5 years of age by medical students. Subjects and methods. A clinical trial was done for medical students and they were divided into two randomized groups: group A which used the traditional teaching method and group B, which used the simulated-scenario method. The primary outcomes were seen in the global evaluation performances. A Mann-Withney Wilcoxon test was used for the comparison among groups and a paired Mann-Withney Wilcoxon test was used for the intra-group analysis (before and after the intervention). Results. When using the paired Mann-Withney Wilcoxon intragroup test pre and post intervention, group A showed a better skill development in the primary outcome (p = 0.02) and the global evaluation in simulated scenario (p = 0.04). On the other hand, group B reached significant changes on the primary outcomes (p = 0.00), anamnesis (p = 0.00) and global evaluation with the simulated-scenario method (p = 0.00). It was observed that in the post-intervention evaluation there weren't any significant differences between the primary and secondary outcomes. Conclusions. The post-intervention comparison between groups A and B didn't show significant differences in the studied variables between both groups.
Palabras clave : Dyspnea; Medical education; Medical simulation; Respiratory tract diseases; Respiratory insufficiency.