Hamui-Sutton A, Lavalle-Montalvo C, Díaz-Villanueva A, Gómez-Lamont DS, Carrasco-Rojas JA, Vilar-Puig P

Language: Spanish
References: 35
Page: 558-570
PDF size: 656.60 Kb.

Text Extraction

Background: Technological progress is now inexorable in medical education; however, this process shows different characteristics and needs to be planned. The quality of education passes through the use of interactive strategies that stimulate significant learning.
Objectives: To identify technological resources used by teachers and students of Unique Plan of Medical Specializations for educational purposes and their participation in distance education, and to know how often they use the Virtual Library of the Medicine School, UNAM.
Material and methods: A cross-sectional study stratified by age, sex, institution and specialty based on two online surveys: one to 652 teachers and the other to 2,865 residents. Both included questions about the use of technology resources for medical education and are presented in a comparative manner.
Results: 94% of teachers and 99% of residents responded that they use information and communication technologies in the educational process. A 39.5% of students and 30.8% of teachers had participated in some form of distance education; 58.8% of residents and 44% of teachers reported using the virtual library of the UNAM; however, 64% of students and 55.5% of teachers did not navigate even one hour a week in this digital platform. Finally, teachers and students used e-mail as an educational tool alike, not the chat, blogs, social networks, institutional intranet. Technology generation gap is expressed in this area.
Conclusions: Digital educational resources today are more and better, the challenge is how to disseminate and incorporate evenly and democratically this process to ensure the quality of instruction, regardless of the venue, the institution to which they belong, age, sex or specialty.

REFERENCES

1. Kramer KA. Reshaping our educational experiences. Acad Psychiatry 2006;30:442-443.

2. Stevens S, Goldsmith T, Summers K, et al. Virtual reality training improves students’ knowledge structures of medical concepts. Stud Health Tech Informat 2005;111:519-525.

3. Quattrochi J, Pasquale S, Cerva B, et al. Learning neuroscience: an interactive case-based online network (ICON). J Sci Educ Teach 2002;11:15-38.

4. Woodward P. Nanlohy Digital portafolios: fact or fashion? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 2004;29:12.

5. Yellowlees P, Marks S. Pedagogy and educational technologies of the future. Acad Psychiatry 2006;30:411-439.

6. Vichitvejpaisal P, Sitthikongsak S, Preechakoon B, et al. Does computer-assisted instruction really help to improve the learning process? Med Educ 2001;35:983-89.

7. Editorial. Will consumerism lead to better health? Lancet 2005;366:43.

8. Robinson JC. Managed consumerism in health care. Health Aff 2005;24:1478-1489.

9. Kubiak T, Hermanns N, Schreckling H, et al. Evaluation of a self-management-based patient education program for the treatment and prevention of hipoglicemiarelated problems in type 1 diabetes. Patient Educ Couns 2006;60:228-234.

10. Murray E, Lo B, Pollack L, et al. The impact of health information on the internet on the physician-patient relationship: national US survey among 1,050 US physicians. J Med Internet Res 2003;5:e17.

11. Baker L, Wagner T, Singer S, et al. Use of the Internet and e-mail for health care information: results from a national survey. JAMA 2003;289:2400-2406.

12. Shortliffe E. The evolution of electronic medical records. Acad Med 1999;74:414-19.

13. Katehakis D, Sfakianakis S, Tsiknakis M, et al. An infrastructure for Integrated Electronic Health Record services: the role of XML (Extensible Markup Language). J Med Internet Res 2001;3:7.

14. Hashiyada M. Development of biometric DNA ink for authentication security. Tohoku J Exp Med 2004;204:109- 117.

15. Allison JJ, Kiefe CI, Wall T, et al. Multicomponent Internet continuing medical education to promote chlamydia screening. Am J Prev Med 2005;28:285-290.

16. Hiramanek N. Self-directed learning and continuing medical education. Aust Fam Physician 2005;34:879.880.

17. Ginsburg G, Donahue M, Newby L. Prospects for personalized cardiovascular medicine: the impact of genomics. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005;46:1615-1627.

18. Kobal SL, Atar S, Siegel RJ. Hand-carried ultrasound improves the bedside cardiovascular examination Chest 2004;126:693-601.

19. Duque G, Finkelstein A, Roberts A, et al. Learning while evaluating: the use of an electronic evaluation portfolio in a geriatric medicine clerkship. BMC Med Educ 2006;6:4.

20. Joosse P, Goslings J, Luitse J, et al. M-study: arguments for regional trauma databases. J Trauma 2005;58:1272-1276.

21. Kennedy J. Herb and supplement use in the US adult population. Clin Ther 2005;27:1847-1858.

22. Harnett B. Telemedicine systems and telecommunications. J Telemed Telecare 2006;12:4-15.

23. Fernandez R, Hebert G. Global licensure: new modalities of treatment and care require the development of new structures and systems to access care. Nurs Adm Q 2004;28:129-132.

24. Segouin C, Hodges B, Brechat, P. Globalization in health care: is international standardization of quality a step toward outsourcing? Int J Qual Health Care 2005;17:277- 279.

25. Srinivasan M, Keenan M, Yager M. Visualizing the future: technology competency development in clinical medicine, and implications for medical education. Acad Psychiatry 2006;30:6-12.

26. Briscoe W, Fore L, Lin T, et al. Students’ and residents’ perceptions regarding technology in medical training. Acad Psychiatry 2006;30:470-479.

27. Rosenblit S. Eight paradoxes in the implementation process of E-learning in higher education. Higher Education Policy 2005;18:6-18.

28. Kennedy D, Duffy T. Eight paradoxes in the implementation process of E-learning in higher education. Open Learning 2004;19:204-211.

29. Hilty D, Benjamin S, Briscoe G, et al. APA Summit on Medical Student Education Task Force on Informatics and Technology: Steps to enhance the use of technology in education through faculty development, funding and change management. Acad Psychiatry 2006;30:444- 490.

30. Wilkers S, Howel L. Technology as an instrument to improve quality, accountability, and reflection in academic medicine. Acad Psychiatry 2006;30:456-464.

31. Kennedy D, Duffy T. Collaboration- a key principle in distance education. Open Learning 2004;19:204-210.

32. Martich G, Waldmann C, Imhoff M. Clinical informatics in critical care. J Intensive Care Med 2004;19:154-163.

33. Luo JS, Hilty M, Worley L, Yager J. Considerations in change management related to technology: Acad Psychiatry 2006;30:465-469.

34. Rogers E. Diffusion of innovations. 4th ed. New York: Free Press; 1995:28.

35. Murray E, Lo B, Pollack L, et al. The impact of health information on the internet on health care and the physicianpatient relationship: national US survey among 1,050 US physicians. J Med Internet Res 2003;17:12.