Dyadic practice for the acquisition of laparoscopic skills (DALS)-A randomized controlled trial.
collaborative learning
dyadic practice
education
simulation
simulation‐based education
surgical training
Journal
World journal of surgery
ISSN: 1432-2323
Titre abrégé: World J Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7704052
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2024
Feb 2024
Historique:
received:
16
10
2023
accepted:
18
12
2023
medline:
30
4
2024
pubmed:
30
4
2024
entrez:
30
4
2024
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Laparoscopic simulation is integral to surgical education but requires significant resources. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of dyadic practice (DP), involving two individuals working together, to individual practice (IP) for novices acquiring laparoscopic skills and assess their learning experience. We conducted a Randomized Controlled Trial comparing DP and IP for novice medical students who completed a laparoscopic simulation workshop. Participants were assessed individually pre-course (test 1), post-course (test 2), and 8-week retention (test 3) using a validated quantitative method. A post-course questionnaire and interview, analyzed with thematic analysis, assessed the learning experience. In total, 31 DP and 35 IP participants completed the study. There was no difference in mean scores between DP and IP groups in all three tests: test 1 (p = 0.55), test 2 (p = 0.26), test 3 (p = 0.35). In trend analysis, the DP group improved post-course (test 1 vs. 2: p = 0.02) and maintained this level at the retention test (2 vs. 3: p = 0.80, 1 vs. 3: p = 0.02). Whilst the IP group also improved post-course (test 1 vs. 2: p < 0.001), this improvement was not retained (2 vs. 3: p = 0.003, 1 vs. 3: p = 0.32). Thematic analysis revealed that DP participants valued peer support, peer feedback and observation time, but also acknowledged the limitations of reduced practical time and issues with teamwork. DP is non-inferior to IP for novices learning laparoscopic skills, is well received and may lead to superior long-term skill retention.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Laparoscopic simulation is integral to surgical education but requires significant resources. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of dyadic practice (DP), involving two individuals working together, to individual practice (IP) for novices acquiring laparoscopic skills and assess their learning experience.
METHODS
METHODS
We conducted a Randomized Controlled Trial comparing DP and IP for novice medical students who completed a laparoscopic simulation workshop. Participants were assessed individually pre-course (test 1), post-course (test 2), and 8-week retention (test 3) using a validated quantitative method. A post-course questionnaire and interview, analyzed with thematic analysis, assessed the learning experience.
RESULTS
RESULTS
In total, 31 DP and 35 IP participants completed the study. There was no difference in mean scores between DP and IP groups in all three tests: test 1 (p = 0.55), test 2 (p = 0.26), test 3 (p = 0.35). In trend analysis, the DP group improved post-course (test 1 vs. 2: p = 0.02) and maintained this level at the retention test (2 vs. 3: p = 0.80, 1 vs. 3: p = 0.02). Whilst the IP group also improved post-course (test 1 vs. 2: p < 0.001), this improvement was not retained (2 vs. 3: p = 0.003, 1 vs. 3: p = 0.32). Thematic analysis revealed that DP participants valued peer support, peer feedback and observation time, but also acknowledged the limitations of reduced practical time and issues with teamwork.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
DP is non-inferior to IP for novices learning laparoscopic skills, is well received and may lead to superior long-term skill retention.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Comparative Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
278-287Informations de copyright
© 2024 The Authors. World Journal of Surgery published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Surgery/Société Internationale de Chirurgie (ISS/SIC).
Références
McGaghie, William C., S. Barry Issenberg, Elaine R. Cohen, Jeffrey H. Barsuk, and Diane B. Wayne. 2011. “Does Simulation‐Based Medical Education with Deliberate Practice Yield Better Results Than Traditional Clinical Education? A Meta‐Analytic Comparative Review of the Evidence.” Academic Medicine 86(6): 706–711. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0b013e318217e119.
Li, Mimi M., and Joseph George. 2017. “A Systematic Review of Low‐Cost Laparoscopic Simulators.” Surgical Endoscopy 31(1): 38–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464‐016‐4953‐3.
Peters, Jeffrey H., Gerald M. Fried, Lee L. Swanstrom, Nathaniel J. Soper, Lelan F. Sillin, Bruce Schirmer, Kaaren Hoffman, and The SAGES FLS Committee. 2004. “Development and Validation of a Comprehensive Program of Education and Assessment of the Basic Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery.” Surgery 135(1): 21–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0039‐6060(03)00156‐9.
Hennessey, Iain A. M., and Peter Hewett. 2013. “Construct, Concurrent, and Content Validity of the eoSim Laparoscopic Simulator.” Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques 23(10): 855–860. https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2013.0229.
Good, M. L. 2003. “Patient Simulation for Training Basic and Advanced Clinical Skills.” Medical Education 37(s1): 14–21. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365‐2923.37.s1.6.x.
Tan, Shaun Shi Yan, and Sudip K. Sarker. 2011. “Simulation in Surgery: A Review.” Scottish Medical Journal 56(2): 104–109. https://doi.org/10.1258/smj.2011.011098.
Tolsgaard, Martin G., Kulamakan M. Kulasegaram, and Charlotte V. Ringsted. 2016. “Collaborative Learning of Clinical Skills in Health Professions Education: The Why, How, When and for Whom.” Medical Education 50(1): 69–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12814.
Zetner, Diana B., Lars Konge, Anja Fabrin, John B. Christensen, and Ebbe Thinggaard. 2022. “The Challenges of Dyad Practice in Simulation Training of Basic Open Surgical Skills‐A Mixed‐Method Study.” Simulation in Healthcare: The Journal of The Society for Medical Simulation 17(1): e91–e97. https://doi.org/10.1097/sih.0000000000000560.
Shanks, David, Ryan Brydges, Wendie den Brok, Parvathy Nair, and Rose Hatala. 2013. “Are Two Heads Better Than One? Comparing Dyad and Self‐Regulated Learning in Simulation Training.” Medical Education 47(12): 1215–1222. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12284.
Bjerrum, Anne Sofie, Berit Eika, Peder Charles, and Ole Hilberg. 2014. “Dyad Practice Is Efficient Practice: a Randomised Bronchoscopy Simulation Study.” Medical Education 48(7): 705–712. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12398.
Tolsgaard, Martin G., Mette E. Madsen, Charlotte Ringsted, Birgitte S. Oxlund, Anna Oldenburg, Jette L. Sorensen, Bent Ottesen, and Ann Tabor. 2015. “The Effect of Dyad versus Individual Simulation‐Based Ultrasound Training on Skills Transfer.” Medical Education 49(3): 286–295. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12624.
Barry Issenberg, S., William C. Mcgaghie, Emil R. Petrusa, David Lee Gordon, and Ross J. Scalese. 2005. “Features and Uses of High‐Fidelity Medical Simulations that Lead to Effective Learning: A BEME Systematic Review.” Medical Teacher 27(1): 10–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590500046924.
Dickinson, Karen J., Mary Katherine Kimbrough, Amanda Young, Clayton Goddard, Kelly Urban, Kyle J. Kalkwarf, Avi Bhavaraju, and Joseph Margolick. 2022. “An Educational Module to Teach Interprofessional Learner Feedback Skills for Trauma Simulation Events.” World Journal of Surgery 46(7): 1602–1608. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268‐022‐06551‐8.
Vygotsky, L. S., and M. Cole. 1978. Mind in Society: Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press.
Rizzolatti, Giacomo, and Laila Craighero. 2004. “The Mirror‐Neuron System.” Annual Review of Neuroscience 27(1): 169–192. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.neuro.27.070203.144230.
Cordovani, Ligia, and Daniel Cordovani. 2016. “A Literature Review on Observational Learning for Medical Motor Skills and Anesthesia Teaching.” Advances in Health Sciences Education: Theory and Practice 21(5): 1113–1121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459‐015‐9646‐5.
Fraser, Kristin L., Paul Ayres, and John Sweller. 2015. “Cognitive Load Theory for the Design of Medical Simulations.” Simulation in Healthcare 10(5): 295–307. https://doi.org/10.1097/sih.0000000000000097.
Räder, Sune B. E. W., A.‐Helen Henriksen, Vitalij Butrymovich, Mikael Sander, Erik Jørgensen, Lars Lönn, and Charlotte V. Ringsted. 2014. “A Study of the Effect of Dyad Practice versus that of Individual Practice on Simulation‐Based Complex Skills Learning and of Students' Perceptions of How and Why Dyad Practice Contributes to Learning.” Academic Medicine 89(9): 1287–1294. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0000000000000373.
Kirschner, Paul A., John Sweller, Femke Kirschner, and Jimmy Zambrano R. 2018. “From Cognitive Load Theory to Collaborative Cognitive Load Theory.” International Journal of Computer‐Supported Collaborative Learning 13(2): 213–233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412‐018‐9277‐y.
Shea, Charles H., Gabriele Wulf, and Chad Whltacre. 1999. “Enhancing Training Efficiency and Effectiveness through the Use of Dyad Training.” Journal of Motor Behavior 31(2): 119–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222899909600983.
Kowalewski, K.‐Friedrich, Andreas Minassian, Jonathan David Hendrie, Laura Benner, Anas Amin Preukschas, Hannes Götz Kenngott, Lars Fischer, Beat P. Müller‐Stich, and Felix Nickel. 2019. “One or Two Trainees Per Workplace for Laparoscopic Surgery Training Courses: Results from a Randomized Controlled Trial.” Surgical Endoscopy 33(5): 1523–1531. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464‐018‐6440‐5.
Ljuhar, Damir, Maurizio Pacilli, and Ramesh Mark Nataraja. 2020. “Evaluation of a Novel Low‐Cost Laparoscopic Training Model for Core Laparoscopic Skills.” Journal of Pediatric Surgery 55(8): 1475–1480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2019.09.020.
Nataraja, R. M., Niyi. Ade‐Ajayi, K. Holak, D. Arbell, and Joseph. I. Curry. 2006. “Pilot Study of New Training Model for Laparoscopic Surgery.” Pediatric Surgery International 22(6): 546–550. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00383‐006‐1665‐0.
Burns, Claire L. 2015. “Using Debriefing and Feedback in Simulation to Improve Participant Performance: an Educator's Perspective.” International Journal of Medical Education 6: 118–120. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.55fb.3d3a.
LeBel, M.‐Eve, John Haverstock, Sayra Cristancho, van Eimeren Lucia, and Gavin Buckingham. 2018. “Observational Learning During Simulation‐Based Training in Arthroscopy: Is It Useful to Novices?” Journal of Surgical Education 75(1): 222–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2017.06.005.
Tolsgaard, Martin G., Sebastian Bjørck, Maria B. Rasmussen, Amandus Gustafsson, and Charlotte Ringsted. 2013. “Improving Efficiency of Clinical Skills Training: A Randomized Trial.” Journal of General Internal Medicine 28(8): 1072–1077. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606‐013‐2378‐4.
Johnson, David W., and Roger T. Johnson. 2009. “An Educational Psychology Success Story: Social Interdependence Theory and Cooperative Learning.” Educational Researcher 38(5): 365–379. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x09339057.
Abbott, Eduardo F., Torrey A. Laack, Lauren K. Licatino, Christina M. Wood‐Wentz, Paul A. Warner, Laurence C. Torsher, James S. Newman, and Katie M. Rieck. 2021. “Comparison of Dyad Versus Individual Simulation‐Based Training on Stress, Anxiety, Cognitive Load, and Performance: A Randomized Controlled Trial.” BMC Medical Education 21(1): 367. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909‐021‐02786‐6.
Seal, Francesca B., Wenjing He, David Pinzon, and Bin Zheng. 2020. “Training of Laparoscopic Novices Both Individually and in Dyads Using a Simulation Task.” Journal of Robotic Surgery 14(1): 29–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701‐019‐00927‐0.