背景:COVID-19大流行对健康和医学教育的破坏使教育工作者质疑在线环境对学生学习的影响,动机,自我效能感和偏好。鉴于医护人员短缺,在线可扩展教育似乎很重要。关于在线医学教育效果的评论呼吁高质量的RCT,这与快速的技术发展和大学在线学习的广泛适应越来越相关。该试验的目的是比较在线和现场设置研究课程的标准化和可行的结果,该课程对健康和医学科学领域的博士生的功效:主要是学习研究方法,其次是偏好,动机,短期自我效能感和长期学术成就。根据作者在大流行期间进行课程的经验,假设是学生首选的现场设置与在线设置不同。
方法:两个平行组的整群随机试验。两个博士研究培训课程在哥本哈根大学随机在线(缩放)或现场(帕克研究所,丹麦)设置。报名的学生被邀请参加研究。主要结果是短期学习。次要结果是短期偏好,动机,自我效能感,和长期的学术成就。标准化,可重复和可行的结果将通过量身定制的多项选择问卷来衡量,评估调查,经常使用的内在动机清单,单项自我效能问题,和谷歌学者出版数据。样本量计算为20个簇,课程由计算机随机数发生器随机化。统计分析将由外部统计专家盲化进行。
结论:将主要结局和次要重要结局与相关文献进行比较和对比。局限性包括地理环境;偏见包括缺乏盲法,优势是完善的概念框架中可靠的评估方法。在其他学科的博士学位教育的概括性很高。这项研究的结果将对参与健康和医学教育研究培训课程的学生和教育工作者以及最终从这种培训中受益的患者产生影响。
背景:回顾性注册在ClinicalTrials.gov:NCT05736627。遵循精神准则。
BACKGROUND: The disruption of health and medical education by the COVID-19 pandemic made educators question the effect of online setting on students\' learning, motivation, self-efficacy and preference. In light of the health care staff shortage online scalable education seemed relevant. Reviews on the effect of online medical education called for high quality RCTs, which are increasingly relevant with rapid technological development and widespread adaption of online learning in universities. The objective of this trial is to compare standardized and feasible outcomes of an online and an onsite setting of a research course regarding the efficacy for PhD students within health and medical sciences: Primarily on learning of research methodology and secondly on preference, motivation, self-efficacy on short term and academic achievements on long term. Based on the authors experience with conducting courses during the pandemic, the hypothesis is that student preferred onsite setting is different to online setting.
METHODS: Cluster randomized trial with two parallel groups. Two PhD research training courses at the University of Copenhagen are randomized to online (Zoom) or onsite (The Parker Institute, Denmark) setting. Enrolled students are invited to participate in the study. Primary outcome is short term learning. Secondary outcomes are short term preference, motivation, self-efficacy, and long-term academic achievements. Standardized, reproducible and feasible outcomes will be measured by tailor made multiple choice questionnaires, evaluation survey, frequently used Intrinsic Motivation Inventory, Single Item Self-Efficacy Question, and Google Scholar publication data. Sample size is calculated to 20 clusters and courses are randomized by a computer random number generator. Statistical analyses will be performed blinded by an external statistical expert.
CONCLUSIONS: Primary outcome and secondary significant outcomes will be compared and contrasted with relevant literature. Limitations include geographical setting; bias include lack of blinding and strengths are robust assessment methods in a well-established conceptual framework. Generalizability to PhD education in other disciplines is high. Results of this study will both have implications for students and educators involved in research training courses in health and medical education and for the patients who ultimately benefits from this training.
BACKGROUND: Retrospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05736627. SPIRIT guidelines are followed.