Evaluation of Adaptive Feedback in a Smartphone-Based Game on Health Care Providers' Learning Gain: Randomized Controlled Trial.
developing countries
education
emergency medical services
feedback
global health
health workforce
mobile phone
neonatal mortality
smartphone
Journal
Journal of medical Internet research
ISSN: 1438-8871
Titre abrégé: J Med Internet Res
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 100959882
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 07 2020
06 07 2020
Historique:
received:
19
11
2019
accepted:
08
04
2020
revised:
13
03
2020
entrez:
7
7
2020
pubmed:
7
7
2020
medline:
15
12
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Although smartphone-based emergency care training is more affordable than traditional avenues of training, it is still in its infancy, remains poorly implemented, and its current implementation modes tend to be invariant to the evolving learning needs of the intended users. In resource-limited settings, the use of such platforms coupled with gamified approaches remains largely unexplored, despite the lack of traditional training opportunities, and high mortality rates in these settings. The primary aim of this randomized experiment is to determine the effectiveness of offering adaptive versus standard feedback, on the learning gains of clinicians, through the use of a smartphone-based game that assessed their management of a simulated medical emergency. A secondary aim is to examine the effects of learner characteristics and learning spacing with repeated use of the game on the secondary outcome of individualized normalized learning gain. The experiment is aimed at clinicians who provide bedside neonatal care in low-income settings. Data were captured through an Android app installed on the study participants' personal phones. The intervention, which was based on successful attempts at a learning task, included adaptive feedback provided within the app to the experimental arm, whereas the control arm received standardized feedback. The primary end point was completion of the second learning session. Of the 572 participants enrolled between February 2019 and July 2019, 247 (43.2%) reached the primary end point. The primary outcome was standardized relative change in learning gains between the study arms as measured by the Morris G effect size. The secondary outcomes were the participants individualized normalized learning gains. The effect of adaptive feedback on care providers' learning gain was found to be g=0.09 (95% CI -0.31 to 0.46; P=.47). In exploratory analysis, using normalized learning gains, when subject-treatment interaction and differential time effect was controlled for, this effect increased significantly to 0.644 (95% CI 0.35 to 0.94; P<.001) with immediate repetition, which is a moderate learning effect, but reduced significantly by 0.28 after a week. The overall learning change from the app use in both arms was large and may have obscured a direct effect of feedback. There is a considerable learning gain between the first two rounds of learning with both forms of feedback and a small added benefit of adaptive feedback after controlling for learner differences. We suggest that linking the adaptive feedback provided to care providers to how they space their repeat learning session(s) may yield higher learning gains. Future work might explore in more depth the feedback content, in particular whether or not explanatory feedback (why answers were wrong) enhances learning more than reflective feedback (information about what the right answers are). Pan African Clinical Trial Registry (PACTR) 201901783811130; https://pactr.samrc.ac.za/TrialDisplay.aspx?TrialID=5836. RR2-10.2196/13034.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Although smartphone-based emergency care training is more affordable than traditional avenues of training, it is still in its infancy, remains poorly implemented, and its current implementation modes tend to be invariant to the evolving learning needs of the intended users. In resource-limited settings, the use of such platforms coupled with gamified approaches remains largely unexplored, despite the lack of traditional training opportunities, and high mortality rates in these settings.
OBJECTIVE
The primary aim of this randomized experiment is to determine the effectiveness of offering adaptive versus standard feedback, on the learning gains of clinicians, through the use of a smartphone-based game that assessed their management of a simulated medical emergency. A secondary aim is to examine the effects of learner characteristics and learning spacing with repeated use of the game on the secondary outcome of individualized normalized learning gain.
METHODS
The experiment is aimed at clinicians who provide bedside neonatal care in low-income settings. Data were captured through an Android app installed on the study participants' personal phones. The intervention, which was based on successful attempts at a learning task, included adaptive feedback provided within the app to the experimental arm, whereas the control arm received standardized feedback. The primary end point was completion of the second learning session. Of the 572 participants enrolled between February 2019 and July 2019, 247 (43.2%) reached the primary end point. The primary outcome was standardized relative change in learning gains between the study arms as measured by the Morris G effect size. The secondary outcomes were the participants individualized normalized learning gains.
RESULTS
The effect of adaptive feedback on care providers' learning gain was found to be g=0.09 (95% CI -0.31 to 0.46; P=.47). In exploratory analysis, using normalized learning gains, when subject-treatment interaction and differential time effect was controlled for, this effect increased significantly to 0.644 (95% CI 0.35 to 0.94; P<.001) with immediate repetition, which is a moderate learning effect, but reduced significantly by 0.28 after a week. The overall learning change from the app use in both arms was large and may have obscured a direct effect of feedback.
CONCLUSIONS
There is a considerable learning gain between the first two rounds of learning with both forms of feedback and a small added benefit of adaptive feedback after controlling for learner differences. We suggest that linking the adaptive feedback provided to care providers to how they space their repeat learning session(s) may yield higher learning gains. Future work might explore in more depth the feedback content, in particular whether or not explanatory feedback (why answers were wrong) enhances learning more than reflective feedback (information about what the right answers are).
TRIAL REGISTRATION
Pan African Clinical Trial Registry (PACTR) 201901783811130; https://pactr.samrc.ac.za/TrialDisplay.aspx?TrialID=5836.
INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)
RR2-10.2196/13034.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32628115
pii: v22i7e17100
doi: 10.2196/17100
pmc: PMC7380991
doi:
Banques de données
PACTR
['201901783811130']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e17100Subventions
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
ID : 207522
Pays : United Kingdom
Informations de copyright
©Timothy Tuti, Niall Winters, Hilary Edgcombe, Naomi Muinga, Conrad Wanyama, Mike English, Chris Paton. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 06.07.2020.
Références
JAMA. 2001 Apr 18;285(15):1987-91
pubmed: 11308435
JMIR Res Protoc. 2017 Jul 05;6(7):e128
pubmed: 28679491
Arch Dis Child. 2016 Dec;101(12):1149-1152
pubmed: 27658948
BMJ. 2015 May 27;350:h2445
pubmed: 26016488
J Med Internet Res. 2019 Mar 28;21(3):e12994
pubmed: 30920375
BMJ Open. 2018 Mar 16;8(3):e019871
pubmed: 29549206
BMJ Open. 2019 Aug 28;9(8):e025252
pubmed: 31467045
Arch Dis Child. 2014 Nov;99(11):993-7
pubmed: 24925893
BMC Health Serv Res. 2016 Dec 1;16(1):681
pubmed: 27908286
Bull World Health Organ. 2013 Nov 1;91(11):890-2
pubmed: 24347719
Lancet. 2008 Feb 23;371(9613):689-691
pubmed: 18295028
Lancet. 2010 Dec 4;376(9756):1923-58
pubmed: 21112623
BMJ. 2001 Jan 6;322(7277):40-4
pubmed: 11141156
BMC Med Educ. 2019 Jan 3;19(1):3
pubmed: 30606174
JMIR Res Protoc. 2019 Jul 26;8(7):e13034
pubmed: 31350837
PLoS One. 2016 Mar 31;11(3):e0152882
pubmed: 27030974
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2017 Aug 30;5(8):e126
pubmed: 28855147
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009 Oct;107 Suppl 1:S47-62, S63-4
pubmed: 19815203
Psychol Methods. 2002 Mar;7(1):105-25
pubmed: 11928886
BMJ. 2013 Nov 20;347:f6753
pubmed: 24259324
BMC Med. 2019 Jul 18;17(1):139
pubmed: 31315642
Nurse Educ Today. 1995 Jun;15(3):184-9
pubmed: 7616941
N Engl J Med. 2017 Mar 2;376(9):856-867
pubmed: 28249147
PLoS Med. 2011 Apr;8(4):e1001018
pubmed: 21483712
Lancet. 2014 Jul 12;384(9938):189-205
pubmed: 24853593
JAMA. 2016 Nov 8;316(18):1867-1868
pubmed: 27825014
Arch Dis Child. 2008 Sep;93(9):799-804
pubmed: 18719161