EFFECT OF SIMULATED PATIENT USE ON LEARNING MOTIVATION AND STUDENT FEEDBACK IN PHYSIOTHERAPY AND REHABILITATION EDUCATION: A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL

Year 2020, Volume: 31 Issue: 3, 307 - 315, 17.12.2020

Nuray Alaca , Elif Esma Safran Dilek Çağrı Özlem Feyzioğlu

https://doi.org/10.21653/tjpr.638333

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to investigate the effect of simulated patient (SP) use for cervical region assessment on learning motivation and student feedback in undergraduate physiotherapy and rehabilitation (PTR) education. Methods: Sixty volunteered second grade students (46 females) participating in PTR Measurement and Evaluation course were included. Students were randomly divided into three groups: theoretical-practical (TP) course, SP interaction course and TP-SP taking both courses. Pre-post knowledge test including 10 multiple-choice questions was applied before and immediately after the lessons. Instructional Materials Motivation Survey (IMMS) was applied after the lessons. Student feedback (anxiety-stress-motivationusefulness) scores were recorded before, immediately after, and one week after the lessons. Results: The post knowledge test scores of the TP and TP-SP groups were significantly higher than the SP group (p<0.001). The pre-lesson anxiety of the SP and TP-SP groups was higher than the TP group (SP p=0,002 and TP-SP p=0,004). After the completion of the lessons, anxiety levels of the SP group were still higher than the TP group (p=0.002). Motivation level of the SP and TU group were increased after the training (p=0.001). Motivation level of the TP-SP was still higher than the TP group one week later (p=0.004). The TP-SP group’s IMMS findings were statistically higher than the other groups (p=0.005). Conclusion: We suggest that cervical region assessment should be combined with the TP course and SP interaction in the learning process and that it is beneficial to use the SP interaction in PTR undergraduate education.

Keywords

physical therapists, feedback, motivation

FİZYOTERAPİ VE REHABİLİTASYON EĞİTİMİNDE SİMÜLE HASTA KULLANIMININ ÖĞRENME MOTİVASYONU VE ÖĞRENCİ GERİ BİLDİRİMLERİNE ETKİSİ: RANDOMİZE KONTROLLÜ ÇALIŞMA

Abstract

Amaç: Çalışmamızın amacı, fizyoterapi ve rehabilitasyon (FTR) lisans eğitiminde servikal bölge değerlendirmesi için simüle hasta (SH) kullanımının öğrenme motivasyonuna ve öğrenci geribildirimlerine olan etkisini araştırmaktı. Yöntem: Çalışmaya, FTR Ölçme ve Değerlendirme dersini alan 46’sı kadın, 60 gönüllü ikinci sınıf öğrencisi dahil edildi. Öğrenciler, teorik-uygulama (TU) dersi alan, SH oturumuna katılan ve hem TU dersi alıp hem de SH oturumuna katılan (TU-SH) olarak randomize edildi. Tüm öğrencilere eğitim aşamalarının öncesinde ve hemen sonrasında, konu içeriğinden oluşan 10 test sorusu içeren bilgi ön-son testi uygulandı. Eğitim sonrasında bir kez Öğretim Materyaline İlişkin Motivasyon Ölçeği (ÖMMÖ) yapıldı. Eğitim aşamalarının öncesinde, hemen sonrasında ve bir hafta sonrasında öğrenci geribildirim (endişe-stres-motivasyonfayda) skorları kaydedildi. Sonuçlar: TU ve TU-SH gruplarının ön-son test sonuçları, SH grubuna göre anlamlı olarak daha yüksekti (p<0,001). SH ve TU-SH gruplarında ders öncesi endişe düzeyleri, TU grubunun ders öncesi endişe düzeyine göre yüksekti (SH p=0,002 ve TU-SH p=0,004). Eğitimler sona erdikten hemen sonra SH grubunun endişe düzeyi, TU grubuna göre halen yüksekti (p=0,002). TU-SH ve TU gruplarının ders sonrası motivasyon düzeyi SH grubuna göre yüksekti (p<0,001). TU-SH grubunun bir hafta sonraki motivasyon düzeyi ise, TU grubuna göre yüksekti (p=0,004). TU-SH grubunun, ÖMMÖ puanları diğer gruplara göre daha yüksekti (p=0,005). Tartışma: Servikal bölge değerlendirmesinin öğrenim sürecinde TU dersi ile SH oturumunun beraber verilmesinin bu eğitimlerin ayrı ayrı verilmesinden daha uygun olacağını ve SH etkileşiminin FTR lisans eğitiminde kullanılmasının yarar getireceğini öngörmekteyiz.

Keywords

Fizyoterapi ve Rehabilitasyon, Geribildirim, Motivasyon, Simüle Hasta

Supporting Institution

yok

References

• 1. Kınıklı Gİ, Erden A, Cavlak U, Erden Z. Fizyoterapi ve rehabilitasyon eğitiminde simülasyon uygulamaları. Turkiye Klinikleri J Med Educ Special Topics. 2017;2(2):104-110.
• 2. Shankar P, Dwivedi N. Standardized patient’s views about their role in the teaching-learning process of undergraduate basic science medical students. JCDR. 2016;10(6):1-5.
• 3. Owens T, Gliva-McConvey G. Defining excellence in simulation programs. In: Janice C, Juli CE, Chad A, Mancini E eds. Standardized Patients. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2014: p. 199-211.
• 4. Uslu Y, van Giersbergen MY. Hemşirelik eğitiminde standardize hasta kullanımı. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi. 2019;27(1):271-280.
• 5. Roberts F, Cooper K. Effectiveness of high fidelity simulation versus low fidelity simulation on practical/clinical skill development in pre-registration physiotherapy students: a systematic review. JBISRIR. 2019;17(6):1229-1255.
• 6. Sabus C, Macauley K. Simulation in physical therapy education and practice: opportunities and evidence-based instruction to achieve meaningful learning outcomes. J Phys Ther Educ. 2016;30(1):3-13.
• 7. Ladyshewsky R. Simulated patients and assessment. Med Teach. 1999;21(3):266-269.
• 8. Skelton, JR, Matthews PM. Teaching sexual history taking to health care professionals in primary care. Med Educ. 2001;35(6):603-608.
• 9. Blackstock FC, Watson KM, Morris NR, Jones A, Wright A, McMeeken JM, et al. Simulation can contribute a part of cardiorespiratory physiotherapy clinical education: two randomized trials. Simul Healthc. 2013;8(1):32-42.
• 10. Watson K, Wright A, Morris N, McMeeken J, Rivett D, Blackstock F, et al. Can simulation replace part of clinical time? Two parallel randomised controlled trials. Med Educ. 2012;46(7):657–667.
• 11. Black B, Marcoux BC. Feasibility of using standardized patients in a physical therapist education program: a pilot study. J Phys Ther Educ. 2002;16(2):49.
• 12. Gross JM, Fetto J, Rosen E. The cervical spine and thoracic spine. Musculoskeletal Examination. 4th ed. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons; 2015: p. 34-80. 13. Haydon R, Donnelly M, Schwartz R, Strodel W, Jones R. Use of standardized patients to identify deficits in student performance and curriculum effectiveness. Am J Surg. 1994;168(1):57–65.
• 14. Lesage FX, Berjot S, Deschamps F. Clinical stress assessment using a visual analogue scale. Occup Med (Lond). 2012;62(8):600-605.
• 15. Lewis M, Bell J, Asghar A. Use of simulated patients in development of physiotherapy students’ interpersonal skills. Int J Ther Rehabil. 2008;15(5):221–227.
• 16. Svensson E. Concordance between ratings using different scales for the same variable. Stat Med. 2000;19(24):3483–3496.17. Keller JM. Motivational design for learning and performance: The ARCS Model approach. New York, NY: Springer; 2010.
• 18. Dinçer S, Doğanay A. Öğretim materyaline ilişkin motivasyon ölçeği (ÖMMÖ) Türkçe uyarlama çalışması. İlköğretim Online. 2016;15(4):1131-1148.
• 19. Barradell S. Moving forth: imagining physiotherapy education differently. Physiother Theory Pract. 2017;33(6):439–447.
• 20. Huhn K, McGinnis PQ, Wainwright S, Deutsch JE. A comparison of 2 case delivery methods: virtual and live. J Phys Ther Educ. 2013;27(3):41–48.
• 21. Boissonnault W, Morgan B, Buelow J. A comparison of two strategies for teaching medical screening and patient referral in a physical therapist professional degree program. J Phys Ther Educ. 2006;20(1):28–36.
• 22. Bong CL, Lightdale JR, Fredette ME, Weinstock P. Effects of simulation versus traditional tutorial-based training on physiologic stress levels among clinicians: a pilot study. Simul Healthc. 2010;5(5):272-278.
• 23. Judd BK, Alison JA, Waters D, Gordon CJ. Comparison of psychophysiological stress in physiotherapy students undertaking simulation and hospital-based clinical education. Simul Healthc. 2016;11(4):271-277.
• 24. Keitel A, Ringleb M, Schwartges I, Weik U, Picker O, Stockhorst U, Deinzer R. Endocrine and psychological stress responses in a simulated emergency situation. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2011;36(1):98-108.
• 25. Laschinger S, Medves J, Pulling C, McGraw DR, Waytuck B, Harrison MB, et al. Effectiveness of simulation on health profession students’ knowledge, skills, confidence and satisfaction. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2008;6(3):278-302.
• 26. Gordon JA, Wilkerson WM, Shaffer DW, Armstrong EG. “Practicing” medicine without risk: students’ and educators’ responses to high-fidelity patient simulation. Acad Med. 2001;76(5):469-472.
• 27. Feickert JA, Harris IB, Anderson DC, Bland CJ, Allen S, Poland GA, et al. Senior medical students as simulated patients in an objective structured clinical examination: motivation and benefits. Med Teach. 1992;14(2-3):167-177.
• 28. Dennis D, Sainsbury D, Redwood T, Ng L, Furness A. Introducing simulation based learning activities to physiotherapy course curricula. Creative Education. 2016;7:878-885.
• 29. Wykurz G, Kelly D. Developing the role of patients as teachers: literature review. BMJ. 2002;325(7368):818–821.