Face yourself! - learning progress and shame in different approaches of video feedback: a comparative study.
Adult
Checklist
Clinical Competence
/ standards
Communication
Education, Medical, Undergraduate
Female
Formative Feedback
Humans
Learning
Male
Patient Simulation
Physician-Patient Relations
Referral and Consultation
/ standards
Shame
Students, Medical
/ psychology
Video Recording
/ statistics & numerical data
Young Adult
Communication skills
Medical students
Shame
Video feedback
Journal
BMC medical education
ISSN: 1472-6920
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Educ
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088679
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
27 Mar 2019
27 Mar 2019
Historique:
received:
30
08
2018
accepted:
13
03
2019
entrez:
29
3
2019
pubmed:
29
3
2019
medline:
3
8
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Feedback is a crucial part of medical education and with on-going digitalisation, video feedback has been increasingly in use. Potentially shameful physician-patient-interactions might particularly benefit from it, allowing a meta-perspective view of ones own performance from a distance. We thus wanted to explore different approaches on how to deliver specifically video feedback by investigating the following hypotheses: 1. Is the physical presence of a person delivering the feedback more desired, and associated with improved learning outcomes compared to using a checklist? 2. Are different approaches of video feedback associated with different levels of shame in students with a simple checklist likely to be perceived as least and receiving feedback in front of a group of fellow students being perceived as most embarrassing? Second-year medical students had to manage a consultation with a simulated patient. Students received structured video feedback according to one randomly assigned approach: checklist (CL), group (G), student tutor (ST), or teacher (T). Shame (ESS, TOSCA, subjective rating) and effectiveness (subjective ratings, remembered feedback points) were measured. T-tests for dependent samples and ANOVAs were used for statistical analysis. n = 64 students could be included. Video feedback was in hindsight rated significantly less shameful than before. Subjectively, there was no significant difference between the four approaches regarding effectiveness or the potential to arise shame. Objective learning success showed CL to be significantly less effective than the other approaches; additionally, T showed a trend towards being more effective than G or ST. There was no superior approach as such. But CL could be shown to be less effective than G, ST and T. Feelings of shame were higher before watching one's video feedback than in hindsight. There was no significant difference regarding the different approaches. It does not seem to make any differences as to who is delivering the video feedback as long as it is a real person. This opens possibilities to adapt curricula to local standards, preferences, and resource limitations. Further studies should investigate, whether the present results can be reproduced when also assessing external evaluation and long-term effects.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Feedback is a crucial part of medical education and with on-going digitalisation, video feedback has been increasingly in use. Potentially shameful physician-patient-interactions might particularly benefit from it, allowing a meta-perspective view of ones own performance from a distance. We thus wanted to explore different approaches on how to deliver specifically video feedback by investigating the following hypotheses: 1. Is the physical presence of a person delivering the feedback more desired, and associated with improved learning outcomes compared to using a checklist? 2. Are different approaches of video feedback associated with different levels of shame in students with a simple checklist likely to be perceived as least and receiving feedback in front of a group of fellow students being perceived as most embarrassing?
METHODS
METHODS
Second-year medical students had to manage a consultation with a simulated patient. Students received structured video feedback according to one randomly assigned approach: checklist (CL), group (G), student tutor (ST), or teacher (T). Shame (ESS, TOSCA, subjective rating) and effectiveness (subjective ratings, remembered feedback points) were measured. T-tests for dependent samples and ANOVAs were used for statistical analysis.
RESULTS
RESULTS
n = 64 students could be included. Video feedback was in hindsight rated significantly less shameful than before. Subjectively, there was no significant difference between the four approaches regarding effectiveness or the potential to arise shame. Objective learning success showed CL to be significantly less effective than the other approaches; additionally, T showed a trend towards being more effective than G or ST.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
There was no superior approach as such. But CL could be shown to be less effective than G, ST and T. Feelings of shame were higher before watching one's video feedback than in hindsight. There was no significant difference regarding the different approaches. It does not seem to make any differences as to who is delivering the video feedback as long as it is a real person. This opens possibilities to adapt curricula to local standards, preferences, and resource limitations. Further studies should investigate, whether the present results can be reproduced when also assessing external evaluation and long-term effects.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30917820
doi: 10.1186/s12909-019-1519-9
pii: 10.1186/s12909-019-1519-9
pmc: PMC6437998
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
88Références
Eur J Neurol. 2002 Jan;9(1):83-7
pubmed: 11784381
Med Educ. 2002 Apr;36(4):310-1
pubmed: 11940168
Fam Med. 2002 May;34(5):337-43
pubmed: 12038715
Acad Med. 2002 Jul;77(7):621-80
pubmed: 12114139
Acad Med. 2002 Jul;77(7):744
pubmed: 12114164
Med Educ. 2004 Feb;38(2):145-57
pubmed: 14871385
BMC Med Educ. 2005 Jul 19;5:28
pubmed: 16029509
Med Teach. 2005 Aug;27(5):470-2
pubmed: 16147804
Acad Psychiatry. 2006 Mar-Apr;30(2):130-5
pubmed: 16609119
Teach Learn Med. 2006 Spring;18(2):92-8
pubmed: 16626265
Med Educ. 2006 Aug;40(8):807-15
pubmed: 16869928
Psychol Health Med. 2006 Aug;11(3):307-34
pubmed: 17130068
Psychiatry Res. 2007 Apr 15;150(3):313-25
pubmed: 17320971
Med Educ. 2008 Feb;42(2):189-97
pubmed: 18230092
J Pers Soc Psychol. 1991 Oct;61(4):598-607
pubmed: 1960652
BMC Public Health. 2009 Dec 19;9:474
pubmed: 20021688
Med Educ. 2010 Jan;44(1):101-8
pubmed: 20078761
Acad Med. 2010 Jul;85(7):1212-20
pubmed: 20375832
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2012 Mar;17(1):15-26
pubmed: 21468778
Med Educ. 2011 Oct;45(10):1016-24
pubmed: 21883404
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2013 Aug;18(3):325-41
pubmed: 22581567
Acad Med. 2012 Oct;87(10):1316-22
pubmed: 22914515
Adv Med Educ Pract. 2012 Mar 22;3:19-30
pubmed: 23761999
J Psychol. 2014 Sep-Oct;148(5):577-601
pubmed: 25087320
Med Educ. 2014 Nov;48(11):1045-54
pubmed: 25307632
Patient Educ Couns. 2015 Mar;98(3):356-63
pubmed: 25433967
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2015 Aug;20(3):803-16
pubmed: 25542198
Med Educ. 2015 Jul;49(7):644-7
pubmed: 26077209
Teach Learn Med. 2017 Apr-Jun;29(2):196-206
pubmed: 28051893
Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2017 Apr;121:74-81
pubmed: 28545616
GMS J Med Educ. 2017 Aug 15;34(3):Doc35
pubmed: 28890926
Arch Intern Med. 1987 Sep;147(9):1653-8
pubmed: 3632171
Psychol Rev. 1985 Oct;92(4):548-73
pubmed: 3903815
Med Educ. 1996 Mar;30(2):83-9
pubmed: 8736242
Fam Med. 1996 Feb;28(2):103-6
pubmed: 8932489
Med Educ. 1998 May;32(3):332-6
pubmed: 9743791