Scholarlink

Background <p>Basic life support (BLS) is a core competency for medical students, yet simulation-based training can be resource intensive. Scalable alternatives such as facilitated interactive video may support learning, but evidence on skills retention is mixed. This study aimed to compare facilitated interactive video-based versus simulationbased training, each delivered as an adjunct to the same standardized lecture, on knowledge acquisition and mid-term skills retention in adult BLS education.</p> Methods <p>In this prospective randomized controlled trial, fourth-year medical students at a public university were allocated (1:1) to either simulation-based training (scenario practice plus debriefing) or facilitated interactive video training (interactive animated video with embedded pauses and brief questions, delivered with real-time instructor feedback), after the same standardized 20-min lecture. Knowledge was assessed using a 20-item multiple-choice question test immediately before and after training. Skills were assessed at 3 weeks using a 30-item OSCE checklist. The primary outcome was the between-group difference in 3-week OSCE score; the secondary outcome was the between-group difference in knowledge gain (post-test minus pre-test).</p> Results <p>A total of 121 students were analyzed (video <i>n</i> = 60; simulation <i>n</i> = 61). Post-test scores increased significantly versus pre-test in both groups (both <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). Betweengroup differences were small and not statistically significant: post-test 90.00 (85.00–95.00) vs. 90.00(80.00–95.00) (<i>p</i> = 0.748); gain 15.00(10.00–20.00) vs. 10.00(5.00–20.00) (<i>p</i> = 0.058); and OSCE 24.00(22.00–26.00) vs. 24.00(21.00–26.00) (<i>p</i> = 0.385).</p> Conclusion <p>In this cohort, we found no clear evidence of differences between videobased and simulation-based adjunct training—both delivered after an identical standardized lecture—in short-term knowledge gains or 3-week OSCE performance. Because a substantial portion of the observed knowledge gain is likely attributable to the shared lecture and test–retest exposure, the incremental contribution of each modality cannot be isolated. Nevertheless, facilitated interactive video warrants further investigation as a potential adjunct when simulation capacity is limited.</p> Trial registration <p>ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT07368452).</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Facilitated interactive video versus simulation-based training after a standardized lecture for basic life support in medical students: a randomized trial

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年4月1日

查看全文
  • Serkan Telli,
  • Süleyman Camgöz,
  • Merve Yaman,
  • Seyda Ferah Arslan

摘要

Background

Basic life support (BLS) is a core competency for medical students, yet simulation-based training can be resource intensive. Scalable alternatives such as facilitated interactive video may support learning, but evidence on skills retention is mixed. This study aimed to compare facilitated interactive video-based versus simulationbased training, each delivered as an adjunct to the same standardized lecture, on knowledge acquisition and mid-term skills retention in adult BLS education.

Methods

In this prospective randomized controlled trial, fourth-year medical students at a public university were allocated (1:1) to either simulation-based training (scenario practice plus debriefing) or facilitated interactive video training (interactive animated video with embedded pauses and brief questions, delivered with real-time instructor feedback), after the same standardized 20-min lecture. Knowledge was assessed using a 20-item multiple-choice question test immediately before and after training. Skills were assessed at 3 weeks using a 30-item OSCE checklist. The primary outcome was the between-group difference in 3-week OSCE score; the secondary outcome was the between-group difference in knowledge gain (post-test minus pre-test).

Results

A total of 121 students were analyzed (video n = 60; simulation n = 61). Post-test scores increased significantly versus pre-test in both groups (both p < 0.001). Betweengroup differences were small and not statistically significant: post-test 90.00 (85.00–95.00) vs. 90.00(80.00–95.00) (p = 0.748); gain 15.00(10.00–20.00) vs. 10.00(5.00–20.00) (p = 0.058); and OSCE 24.00(22.00–26.00) vs. 24.00(21.00–26.00) (p = 0.385).

Conclusion

In this cohort, we found no clear evidence of differences between videobased and simulation-based adjunct training—both delivered after an identical standardized lecture—in short-term knowledge gains or 3-week OSCE performance. Because a substantial portion of the observed knowledge gain is likely attributable to the shared lecture and test–retest exposure, the incremental contribution of each modality cannot be isolated. Nevertheless, facilitated interactive video warrants further investigation as a potential adjunct when simulation capacity is limited.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT07368452).