medigraphic.com
ISSN 2007-5057 (Print)
Investigación en Educación Médica

2018, Number 26

<< Back Next >>

Inv Ed Med 2018; 7 (26)

Student tutors and learning critical reading in an undergraduate boarding school

Cobos AH, Pérez CP, Sánchez LS, Sámano GA, Elizondo PRA, Ochoa CCE

Language: Spanish
References: 25
Page: 82-91
PDF size: 326.17 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: Student teaching abilities are disregarded during medical school.
Aim: To compare the results obtained by medical interns (MI) in the critical appraisal of research papers in a course taught by student tutors versus results obtained by Lecturers. The students´ı teaching performance was also evaluated.
Method: The study included 100 MI divided into 4 groups: G1 (n: 16), G2 (n: 29), G3 (n: 28), and G4 (n: 27). Student tutors and Lecturers were assigned to groups (G: 1, 2, 3 ) and (G4 ), respectively. A 40-hour course was designed and included reading published research articles, guideline work-ups, homework review, and group discussions. A validated and consistent (KR 0.78) measurement tool was used that included 96 balanced items, 32 of which were designed to interpret, judge and propose, while 12 focused on study design (case-control, diagnostic tests, surveys, instruments, randomised clinical trial, cohorts, meta-analysis and balanced follow-up), as well as 48 questions to be answered as ‘‘true’’ or ‘‘false’’. The tool was applied at the beginning and end of the course. Before and after results were reported as medians, as well as the items, study design, and overall. Answer randomness and weighted progress were determined in each group. The MI graded the teaching performance of the lecturers with 17 evaluated items.
Results: Overall initial vs. final (G1 : 14 vs. 22*, G2 : 11 vs. 28*, G3 : 13 vs. 21, and G4 : 21 vs. 33. (*Wilcoxon ‹0.05). Kruskal-Wallis, › 0.05, between-group overall initial and ‹ 0.05 in final, in favour of G2 and G4 . Randomness decreased to 38%, 24%, 36%, and 7%, and weighted progress was 1.9, 3.1, 1.9, and 2.5 in the 4 groups, respectively. There was more progress in study designs than in tool designs and RCC. All four Lecturers were graded similarly (Mann-Whitney U test › 0.05).
Conclusions: Results confirm that selected student tutors, by implementing participative strategies, can stimulate learning of critical appraisal of research among MI, and their results are close to those obtained by experienced Lecturers. This ability should be stimulated and strengthened among young physicians.


REFERENCES

  1. Fuchs D, Fuchs LS, Thompson A, Svenson E, Yen L, Al OE, et al. Peer-assisted learning strategies in reading. Extensions for Kindergarten, First Grade and High School. Remedial Spec Educ. 2001;22:15---21.

  2. Soriano RP, Blatt B, Coplit L, Cichoski KE, Kosowicz L, Newman L, et al. Teaching medical students how to teach: A national surveys of students-as-teachers programs in U.S. Medical Schools. Acad Med. 2010;85:1725---31.

  3. Cobos AH, Pérez CP, Viniegra VL. Role of creative discussion in the learning of critical reading of scientific articles. Rev Invest Clin. 2011;63:268---78.

  4. Cobos-Aguilar H, Pérez-Cortés P, Bracho-Vela LA, Garza-Garza MA, Dávila-Rodríguez G, López-Juárez DO, et al. Habilidades docentes en alumnos tutores en lectura crítica de investigación médica durante el internado de pregrado. Inv Ed Med. 2014;3:92---9.

  5. Leyva-González FA, Viniegra VL, Espinosa HE, Robles PJA. La lectura crítica de informes de investigación clínica en médicos residentes del IMSS de cinco especialidades. Estudio exploratorio nacional. Rev Invest Clin. 2007;59:449---57.

  6. Baeza FE, Leyva FA, Aguilar M. Aptitud para la lectura crítica de trabajos de investigación clínica en residentes de cirugía general. Rev Med IMSS. 2004;42:189---92.

  7. González-Ávila G, Leyva-González FA. Lectura crítica de artículos de investigación clínica en médicos residentes de oncología. Rev Med Inst Mex Seguro Soc. 2009;47:689---95.

  8. Carranza LS, Arce HRM, González GP. Evaluación de una estrategia educativa para mejorar la aptitud para la lectura crítica de textos de investigación clínica en residentes de ginecoobstetricia de segundo año. Ginecol Obstet Mex. 2007;75:661---6.

  9. Díaz-Torres Y, Leyva-González FA, Valencia-Sánchez JS, López-Sámano VA, Félix-Espinoza F. Alcances de una estrategia educativa desde una perspectiva participativa de la educación en el desarrollo de lectura crítica de informes de investigación en médicos residentes de medicina nuclear. Gac Méd Méx. 2009;146:103---7.

  10. Sánchez-Mendiola M, Kieffer-Escobar LF, Marín-Beltrán S, Downing SM. Teaching of evidence-based medicine to medical students in Mexico: A randomized controlled trial. BMC Med Educ. 2012;12:107.

  11. Cabrera-Pivaral CE, González-Pérez GJ, Vega-López MG, Recinos-Giróna JJ, Zavala-González MA, Alonso- Álvarez MA. Intervención educativa en médicos residentes para el dominio de lectura crítica de reportes de investigación. Inv Ed Med. 2015;4:119---25.

  12. Insfran-Sánchez MD, Viniegra-Velázquez L. La formación de profesores en el área de la salud. Papel de la discusión en pequeños grupos para el desarrollo de la aptitud de la lectura crítica. Rev Inv Clin. 2004;55:466---76.

  13. Cobos AH, Insfrán SMD, Pérez CP, Elizaldi LNE, Hernández DE, Barrera MJ. Lectura crítica de investigación en el internado de pregrado en hospitales generales. Rev Med IMSS. 2005;43:117---24.

  14. Cobos-Aguilar H, Pérez-Cortés P, Ramírez-Munguía M, Tapia- Orozco J. Lectura crítica de investigación en estudiantes de medicina. Efectos a un año. Rev Med IMSS. 2006;44 Suppl:S85---91.

  15. Aguirre-Raya KA, Castilla-Peón MF, Barajas-Nava LA, Torres- Rodríguez V, Muñoz-Hernández O, Garduño- Espinosa J. Self-perception and knowledge of evidence based medicine by physicians. BMC Med Educ. 2016;16:166.

  16. Viniegra VL. Hacia un nuevo paradigma de la educación. Rev Invest Clin. 2008;60:337---55.

  17. Cobos AH, Pérez CP, de la Garza QH, Ochoa CCE. Proceso de validación de un instrumento para medir la lectura crítica de informes de investigación médica. Inv Ed Med. 2015;4: 200---6.

  18. Pérez-Padilla JR, Viniegra VL. Método para calcular la distribución de las calificaciones esperadas por azar en un examen del tipo falso, verdadero, no sé. Rev Invest Clin. 1989;41: 375---9.

  19. Kaufman DM. ABC of learning and teaching in medicine. Applying educational theory in practice. BMJ. 2003;326:213---6.

  20. Yew KS, Reid A. Teaching evidence-based medicine skills: An exploratory study of residency graduates’ practice habits. Fam Med. 2008;40:24---31.

  21. Carr SE, Brand G, Wei L, Wright H, Nicol P, Metcalfe H, et al. «Helping someone with a skill sharpens it in your own mind»: A mixed method study exploring health professions students experiences of Peer Assisted Learning (PAL). BMC Med Educ. 2016;16:48.

  22. Miller D, Topping K, Thurston A. Peer tutoring in reading: The effects of role and organization on two dimensions of self steem. Br J Educ Psychol. 2010;80:417---33.

  23. Cronin P, Rawson JV, Heilbrun ME, Lee JM, Kelly AM, Sanelli PC, et al. How to critically appraise the clinical literature. Acad Radiol. 2014;21:1117---28.

  24. Peets AD, Coderre S, Wright B, Jenkins D, Burak K, Leskosky S, et al. Involvement in teaching improves learning in medical students: A randomized crossover study. BMC Med Educ. 2009;9:55.

  25. Seaburg LA, Wang AT, West CP, Reed DA, Halvorsen AJ, Engstler G, et al. Associations between resident physicians’ publications and clinical performance during residency training. BMC Med Educ. 2016;16:22.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com