Integrating virtual patients into courses: Follow-up seminars and perceived benefit

Medical Education

Volumn 46, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 417-425

  Edelbring, Samuel ^a   Broström, Olle ^b   Henriksson, Peter ^c   Vassiliou, Daphne ^b   Spaak, Jonas ^c   Dahlgren, Lars Owe ^d   Fors, Uno ^e   Zary, Nabil ^a  

^a KAROLINSKA INSTITUTE   (Sweden)

^b STOCKHOLM SÖDER HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

^c DANDERYD HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

^d LINKÖPING UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^e STOCKHOLM UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; CLINICAL EDUCATION; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; CURRICULUM; EDUCATION; FEEDBACK SYSTEM; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; INTERNET; MEDICAL STUDENT; METHODOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; STANDARD; SWEDEN; TEACHING;

CLINICAL CLERKSHIP; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; COMPUTER-ASSISTED INSTRUCTION; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; CURRICULUM; EDUCATIONAL MEASUREMENT; FEEDBACK; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; INTERNET; PATIENT SIMULATION; STUDENTS, MEDICAL; SWEDEN; TEACHING;

EID: 84858608337     PISSN: 03080110     EISSN: 13652923     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2012.04219.x     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Irby DM. Three exemplary models of case-based teaching. Acad Med 1994;69 (12):947-53.
2. Cook DA, Triola MM. Virtual patients: a critical literature review and proposed next steps. Med Educ 2009;43 (4):303-11.
3. Cook DA, Erwin PJ, Triola MM. Computerised virtual patients in health professions education: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acad Med 2010;85 (10):1589-602.
4. Edelbring S. A three-fold framework for relating to innovations and technology in education: learning from, with and about technology. In: Bromage A, Clouder L, Thistlethwaite J, Gordon F, eds. Interprofessional E-Learning and Collaborative Work: Practices and Technologies. Hershey, PA: IGI Global 2010;23-33.
5. Miller GE. The assessment of clinical skills/competence/performance. Acad Med 1990;9 (Suppl):63-7.
6. Edelbring S, Dastmalchi M, Hult H, Lundberg IE, Dahlgren LO. Experiencing virtual patients in clinical learning: a phenomenological study. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2011;16 (3):331-45.
7. Salas E, Bowers CA, Rhodenizer L. It is not how much you have but how you use it: toward a rational use of simulation to support aviation training. Int J Aviat Psychol 1998;8 (3):197-208.
8. Ellaway RH, Davies D. Design for learning: deconstructing virtual patient activities. Med Teach 2011;33 (4):303-10.
9. Berman N, Fall LH, Smith S, Levine DA, Maloney CG, Potts M, Siegel B, Foster-Johnson L. Integration strategies for using virtual patients in clinical clerkships. Acad Med 2009;84 (7):942-9.
10. Newble DI, Jaeger K. The effect of assessments and examinations on the learning of medical students. Med Educ 1983;17 (3):165-71.
11. Hege I, Ropp V, Adler M, Radon K, Masch G, Lyon H, Fischer MR. Experiences with different integration strategies of case-based e-learning. Med Teach 2007;29 (8):791-7.
12. Berman NB, Fall LH, Maloney CG, Levine DA. Computer-assisted instruction in clinical education: a roadmap to increasing CAI implementation. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2008;13 (3):373-83.
13. Biggs JB, Tang CS. Teaching for Quality Learning at University: What the Student Does, 3rd edn. Maidenhead; New York, NY: Society for Research into Higher Education, Open University Press; McGraw-Hill 2007.
14. Beddy P, Ridgway PF, Beddy D, Clarke E, Traynor O, Tierney S. Defining useful surrogates for user participation in online medical learning. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2009;14 (4):567-74.
15. Wong G, Greenhalgh T, Pawson R. Internet-based medical education: a realist review of what works, for whom and in what circumstances. BMC Med Educ 2010;10:12.
16. Haag M, Singer R, Bauch M, Heid J, Hess F, Leven FJ. Challenges and perspectives of computer-assisted instruction in medical education: lessons learned from seven years of experience with the CAMPUS system. Methods Inf Med 2007;46 (1):67-9.
17. Bryce DA, King NJC, Graebner CF, Myers JH. Computer-assisted learning: evaluation of a medical diagnostic reasoning program. J Vis Commun Med 1997;20 (3):137-8.
18. Johnson B. Toward a new classification of non-experimental quantitative research. Educ Researcher 2001;30 (2):3-13.
19. Zary N, Johnson G, Boberg J, Fors UG. Development, implementation and pilot evaluation of a Web-based virtual patient case simulation environment - Web-SP. BMC Med Educ 2006;6:10.
20. van der Ark LA. Mokken scale analysis in R. J Stat Softw 2007;20 (11):1-19.
21. Prince KJ, van de Wiel M, Scherpbier AJ, van der Vleuten CP, Boshuizen HP. A qualitative analysis of the transition from theory to practice in undergraduate training in a PBL medical school. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2000;5 (2):105-16.
22. Crook C. Versions of computer-supported collaborating in higher education. In: Ludvigsen S, Lund A, Rasmussen I, Säljö R, eds. Learning across Sites: New Tools, Infrastructures and Practices. London: Routledge 2010;156-71.
23. Sfard A. On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educ Researcher 1998;27 (2):4-13.
24. Fall LH, Berman NB, Smith S, White CB, Woodhead JC, Olson AL. Multi-institutional development and utilisation of a computer-assisted learning program for the paediatrics clerkship: the CLIPP Project. Acad Med 2005;80 (9):847-55.
25. Norman G, Eva KW. Quantitative research methods in medical education. In: Swanwick T, ed. Understanding Medical Education: Evidence, Theory, and Practice, 1st edn. Chichester: Blackwell Publishing 2010;301-22.