Regression analyses of questionnaires in bedside teaching.
Bedside teaching
Multivariable regression
Quality management
Student evaluation
Student survey
Journal
BMC medical education
ISSN: 1472-6920
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Educ
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088679
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
16 Oct 2020
16 Oct 2020
Historique:
received:
16
09
2019
accepted:
09
10
2020
entrez:
21
10
2020
pubmed:
22
10
2020
medline:
15
5
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Students' ratings of bedside teaching courses are difficult to evaluate and to comprehend. Validated systematic analyses of influences on students' perception and valuation of bedside teaching can serve as the basis for targeted improvements. Six hundred seventy-two observations were conducted in different surgical departments. Survey items covered the categories teacher's performance, student's self-perception and organizational structures. Relevant factors for the student overall rating were identified by multivariable linear regression after exclusion of variable correlations > 0.500. The main target for intervention was identified by the 15% worst overall ratings via multivariable logistic regression. According to the students the success of bedside teaching depended on their active participation and the teacher's explanations of pathophysiology. Further items are both relevant to the overall rating and a possible negative perception of the session. In comparison, negative perception of courses (worst 15%) is influenced by fewer variables than overall rating. Variables that appear in both calculations show slight differences in their weighing for their respective endpoints. Relevant factors for overall rating and negative perception in bedside teaching can be identified by regression analyses of survey data. Analyses provide the basis for targeted improvement.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Students' ratings of bedside teaching courses are difficult to evaluate and to comprehend. Validated systematic analyses of influences on students' perception and valuation of bedside teaching can serve as the basis for targeted improvements.
METHODS
METHODS
Six hundred seventy-two observations were conducted in different surgical departments. Survey items covered the categories teacher's performance, student's self-perception and organizational structures. Relevant factors for the student overall rating were identified by multivariable linear regression after exclusion of variable correlations > 0.500. The main target for intervention was identified by the 15% worst overall ratings via multivariable logistic regression.
RESULTS
RESULTS
According to the students the success of bedside teaching depended on their active participation and the teacher's explanations of pathophysiology. Further items are both relevant to the overall rating and a possible negative perception of the session. In comparison, negative perception of courses (worst 15%) is influenced by fewer variables than overall rating. Variables that appear in both calculations show slight differences in their weighing for their respective endpoints.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Relevant factors for overall rating and negative perception in bedside teaching can be identified by regression analyses of survey data. Analyses provide the basis for targeted improvement.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33081766
doi: 10.1186/s12909-020-02295-y
pii: 10.1186/s12909-020-02295-y
pmc: PMC7574454
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
371Références
BMJ. 2003 Mar 15;326(7389):591-4
pubmed: 12637408
BMC Med Educ. 2015 Feb 19;15:22
pubmed: 25889459
Int J Med Educ. 2016 Mar 20;7:83-6
pubmed: 26995390
J Gen Intern Med. 1989 Jul-Aug;4(4):284-7
pubmed: 2760696
Pediatrics. 2007 Aug;120(2):275-80
pubmed: 17671052
Med Teach. 2007 Feb;29(1):2-19
pubmed: 17538823
Perspect Med Educ. 2014 Apr;3(2):69-72
pubmed: 24567253
Acad Med. 2013 Jun;88(6):861-5
pubmed: 23619074
Am J Med. 2001 Feb 15;110(3):231-2
pubmed: 11182114
Trends Neurosci. 2012 Apr;35(4):211-9
pubmed: 22398180
Acad Med. 2000 Feb;75(2):161-6
pubmed: 10693849
Acad Med. 1993 Jun;68(6):443-51; discussion 451-3
pubmed: 8507309
Med Teach. 2001 Jul;23(4):337-344
pubmed: 12098379
Med Educ. 2014 Aug;48(8):831-7
pubmed: 25039739
Top Cogn Sci. 2009 Jan;1(1):73-105
pubmed: 25164801
South Med J. 1997 Nov;90(11):1069-74
pubmed: 9386044
J Cogn Neurosci. 2014 Oct;26(10):2250-61
pubmed: 24702454
Acad Med. 1998 Jun;73(6):688-95
pubmed: 9653408
Ann Intern Med. 1997 Feb 1;126(3):217-20
pubmed: 9027273
Eur Radiol Exp. 2018 Oct 24;2(1):35
pubmed: 30353365
Med Teach. 2011;33(12):961-73
pubmed: 22225433
Med Educ. 2000 Oct;34(10):827-40
pubmed: 11012933
Ambul Pediatr. 2007 Sep-Oct;7(5):354-9
pubmed: 17870643
Anat Sci Educ. 2019 Sep;12(5):572-576
pubmed: 30661298
Gynecol Oncol. 2016 Apr;141(1):29-35
pubmed: 27016226
Med Teach. 2003 Mar;25(2):112-5
pubmed: 12745516
Perspect Med Educ. 2014 Apr;3(2):76-88
pubmed: 24049043
Med Teach. 2008;30(4):347-64
pubmed: 18569655
N Engl J Med. 1997 Apr 17;336(16):1150-5
pubmed: 9099660
Am Heart J. 1980 Dec;100(6 Pt 1):928-31
pubmed: 7446394